The Sons of God.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 58
Topic's author
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen wanted to make a point. I have only asked him to prove it from the bible. He has been unable to do so.   

 Stop it! ffs.   You are just so  desperate aren't you. You simply said I was a liar..

"You have still to produce the evidence for your lies that all kings of Israel were called Sons of God". #21  Tradesecret

So, stop your deceitful back peddling attempts to move the goalposts and attempts to play down your false accusation. .  It is a reasonable assumption that all kings Of Israel were called sons of god.  Why would god show favoritism for one his kings over another? All kingship comes from and was handed down from god . Even today it is called " a god given right to rule". 
 

The other kings, may or may not have been known as sons of God. I really don't know.

Listen you snide little backslider,   You  assume Jesus was a  king don't you?  So then where is your  BIBLICAL evidence for Jesus being a king at all. ?  Indeed Jesus himself makes it clear that he is not king even of this world and and forces that point by  making it perfectly clear that  his kingdom is not of this world. 

So do you see your little dilemma there Reverend!???   I should rip up those alleged qualifications Reverend Tradesecret.  They are only good for impressing visitors and mean absolutely nothing. They are worthless.




And I  did show you verses from the scriptures and extra biblical supporting evidence that support the verses from the scriptures BEFORE ANYONE else on this thread, MY thread.  the verse are in the supporting evidence , but you ignored it or simply didn't understand what it was you were reading (which is more likely the case).

You are the bible ignorant  Chaplin Pastor, reverend.   You have shown that your alleged "qualifications" are not worth the paper they are written on.  Your a liar who has been caught cold by your own fkn arrogance.


The fact is that you didn't even know that there were other kings of Israel beside Jesus that were called the sons of god.  If you did, then you would have made the case that you knew there were  other  sons of god. YOU DIDN'T DO SO. , You would also have known that the whole fkn state of Israel were the "sons of god" but you didn't know that either.  

Like I have said, you are a  fake and a coward Reverend. You didn't even know that YOU, that calls yourself "Pastor" didn't even know how YOU are to be addressed!!!!

 No. YOU didn't even know how a Pastor should be addressed  yet  claims to be one !!!!!


I am a lawyer. [......................] But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications. #20

Last quote bottom of page.  " And I am not a reverend" . full quote: 

LOL! - I certainly don't understand the bible in the way you distort them. This is true. You don't have a proper methodology. You just choose passages out of context and run with it. But hey - don't let the facts stand in the way of playing your game.  And I am not a reverend.  #29 

how fkn embarrassing that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  must be for you.. 

  You don't know your  arse from your elbow.  


 You often assume or speculate on the scriptures. As do I  . And I am reasonably assuming that the GOD and father of ISRAEL whose son ISRAEL and father of the Nation of Israel would not favour one king over another. and there is nothing in the scriptures that shows he did.

#32
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen.  You have not proved your case. 

And simply getting all flustered about it and swearing does not mean you have proved it.  

You have NOT demonstrated that the kings of Israel were any more the sons of god generally as anyone else in Israel.  And demonstrating that piece of information means absolutely diddly squat.  You have demonstrated with a couple of verses that David and Solomon were called sons - perhaps of God.  And this of course was specific to them particularly for valid reasons.  You have not demonstrated that it was because they were kings. Not from the bible. And again, when I asked - you simply refuse to provide the answer - were there any other king of Israel who called son of god.  A simple yes or no will suffice.  Or will you just do your normal sidestepping whenever the questions get to difficult for you? 

Your contention is that Jesus was called son of God because all kings of Israel were known as sons of David. I have contradicted that statement. And currently given your lack of evidence - to the contrary - you are floundering.  All you need to do is say "I don't know" and move on.  You don't have the biblical knowledge you think you do.  You really don't.   
Topic's author
#33
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen.  You have not proved your case. 

 That's your opinion. 

 Get over yourself reverend.  You are a proven  fake that  doesn't know that which you are supposed to know. 


I say Jesus' baptism was an ordination of him as Priest, Prophet and King. #2
Tell me how do you know Jesus was a King?  Where is you biblical evidence for such a claim? When was he anointed King and who was he anointed King by?

Let me see your biblical evidence that confirms Jesus was a King.




#34
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
This request raises other issues aside from the "son of God" question. In the eyes of Judaism, it is a problematic claim as the king and the priest came from two different tribes and the two roles were incompatible with each other. There was one exception which ultimately caused huge problems for the nation so it isn't anything that people would want to repeat. There are other objections, especially concerning the term "anointed" and the role of ritual immersion and its relation to the roles of priest and king. But, again, this and other concerns are unrelated to the son of God claim.
Topic's author
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
 Look at the double standard here.


The  thing here is that on this thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4736-then-why-baptize-him  the Reverend  Tradesecrete  claims  that the evidence for Jesus being anointed a king (among other things) is in the bible. 

I say Jesus' baptism was an ordination of him as Priest, Prophet and King. #2  Tradesecret

Followed by:

 Yet, I disagree with you in respect of Jesus' ordination because I take the view that the evidence is there [ in the bible] and it is clear. #18 Tradesecret
By  " is there"  he meant in the bible.

 But I am sure  that you can no doubt guess what happened when asked repeatedly to point out this "clear" biblical evidence, can't you?  That's right;  the thread went on until I asked  her again at post here  #42  Stephen




That's right.   She disappeared.   And the very Reverend Tradesecrete still hasn't shown us  her very "clear evidence" biblical or otherwise that Jesus was anointed a king or anything else has it happens.  Not on single pinch.  And the reason for this is simple , its because she herself used reasonable assumption;  just as I have in stating all kings of Israel were called sons of god. I offered evidence where-as the Reverend Tradesecerte offers NONE for her assumptions!  

Like I have said above., just look at the double standard going on here.  She a fraud and should be ashamed of herself not knowing these scripture before she haughtily prances off to "pass on  things" she doesn't even understand to her imaginary students.

#36
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery,


YOUR QUOTE TRYING SO HARD TO GET OUT OF YOUR EMBARRASSING PREDICAMENT IN TRUE "LAWYER TALK MUMBO-JUMBO": " Oh Hello again Brother - thanks again for your delightful reply.  Did I misunderstand? Sorry.  I thought you were asking me how I came across as a male before - when I was unaware I had described myself that way - and in fact had not put anything into my profile and now after I put my profile up I identify as a female? Is that not what you asked me?" 

You act as though everyone is as dumbfounded as you are and cannot reason regarding your embarrassing situation! Priceless! LOL. In addressing your biblical ignorance, we used the noun "he" in a generic sense to you, AND YOU NEVER CORRECTED US, that is, until you ungodly changed yourself to a "she"  in your current vacant biography. 


BARRING THE FACT OF YOU USING A "MALE" PERSON IN YOUR IMAGE AREA,  SIMPLY EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING CONTRADICTION THAT YOU ARE TRYING SO HARD TO ESCAPE FROM AND THEN WE WILL GO FROM THERE, UNDERSTOOD?:

Tradesecret's Biography where the Gender is MALE 
https://www.debate.org/Tradesecret/

Tradesecret's Biography where the Gender is now FEMALE
https://www.debateart.com/participants/Tradesecret


BEGIN:





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



.
Stephen,

It is truly hard to believe in how he/she Tradesecret can continue to make themselves present within this forum subsequent to you, me, and many others in easily making he/she the Biblical fool!  Tradesecret, or he/she, has yet to realize this FACT at their continued expense, and he/she calls themselves a Christian, and laughably, a lawyer as well?  NOT! 

As embarrassingly shown, poor ol' he/she Tradesecret is now trying in vain to use insidious lawyer speak with me to get out of "their" ever so flustering situation of obviously having an ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery that goes directly against the word of Jesus where the proof below shows this to be true.  

1.  Tradesecret uses a male image

2.  Tradesecret's Biography where the Gender is MALE 

3.  Tradesecret's Biography where the Gender is now FEMALE


.
Topic's author
#38
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
A lawyer.,  a Pastor -  a Chaplain - a Teacher - a Lecturer - and a Chimera. Qualified in the art of  the use of double standards, bible ignorance and out right lying and the 100 meter sprint.. 
The Lord  must be pleased. 

#39
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Look at the double standard here.


The  thing here is that on this thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4736-then-why-baptize-him  the Reverend  Tradesecrete  claims  that the evidence for Jesus being anointed a king (among other things) is in the bible. 

I say Jesus' baptism was an ordination of him as Priest, Prophet and King. #2  Tradesecret

Followed by:

 Yet, I disagree with you in respect of Jesus' ordination because I take the view that the evidence is there [ in the bible] and it is clear. #18 Tradesecret
By  " is there"  he meant in the bible.

 But I am sure  that you can no doubt guess what happened when asked repeatedly to point out this "clear" biblical evidence, can't you?  That's right;  the thread went on until I asked  her again at post here  #42  Stephen




That's right.   She disappeared.   And the very Reverend Tradesecrete still hasn't shown us  her very "clear evidence" biblical or otherwise that Jesus was anointed a king or anything else has it happens.  Not on single pinch.  And the reason for this is simple , its because she herself used reasonable assumption;  just as I have in stating all kings of Israel were called sons of god. I offered evidence where-as the Reverend Tradesecerte offers NONE for her assumptions!  

Like I have said above., just look at the double standard going on here.  She a fraud and should be ashamed of herself not knowing these scripture before she haughtily prances off to "pass on  things" she doesn't even understand to her imaginary students.

Stephen, you are so delightfully clever.  May we all worship the very ground you walk on.  I have not avoided discussing that point as you well know.  I have after all been trying very much to keep up with the answers to your so many questions.  Let alone the Brothers. Perhaps I missed one or two or a hundred - I don't know and really don't care. Again however what you really don't get - is that I am not your lackey doing your homework for you. When I get around to answer questions I will.  You took a very long time to get this topic despite me asking you - you just said "I don't recall it" suggesting by implication, had not.  

In the original post about Jesus' baptism, I addressed the question of why Jesus was baptized despite the fact that he did not sin. I made the point that I took the view that it was his ordination as a priest prophet and king.  You said you agreed but that there was no evidence to prove this in the bible. I said - there was.  I have provided the evidence in relation to his priesthood.  You have not refuted this.  I have not done so yet in relation to his kingship, nor indeed to his ordination as a prophet.  Why you focus on the former to the neglect of the latter is a question for you.  

What is a better question though is - why have you side-stepped Rosends question to you? Rather than answer that one - you simply took the opportunity to have a dig at me and how you perceive I am inconsistent.  Unlike you, I work.  I don't ever hour of every day to address your questions.  Mock me all you like - as you will no doubt do - that is your area of expertise - ad hominen attacks. 

And at least do the curtsey of responding to rosend directly. 
#40
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
This request raises other issues aside from the "son of God" question. In the eyes of Judaism, it is a problematic claim as the king and the priest came from two different tribes and the two roles were incompatible with each other. There was one exception which ultimately caused huge problems for the nation so it isn't anything that people would want to repeat. There are other objections, especially concerning the term "anointed" and the role of ritual immersion and its relation to the roles of priest and king. But, again, this and other concerns are unrelated to the son of God claim.
Hi rosends,

you ask really good questions.  The problem of priest and king is an excellent point for it raises the separation of powers doctrine.  Ancient Israel is often labeled a theocracy because it was a religious nation with the laws of God as their "in principle" statutes.  I think that is a misnomer.  I take the view that every nation is a theocracy. Some are democratic theocracies. Others are constitutional theocracies.  Others are dictatorship or absolute theocracies.   Some are socialist theocracies.  Of course this is not accepted dogma in our legal understanding. Theocracies have always been defined by "religion" or church.  But I think that misses the point entirely. 

Jesus, according to the Gospels was born into the tribe of Judah.  Some on this site suggest that since his mother's cousin was a Levite that this makes him a Levite as well.  Of course the NT rejects this idea emphatically.  It says he was not a Levite in the book of Hebrews and subsequently could not be a priest in the Order of the Levites, especially since he was from the tribe of Judah.  Despite the challenge to these "some", to engage with the book of Hebrews and to this challenge directly, none have been forthcoming. I suppose that they think if they ignore it - no one will ask again. Or Perhaps they have forgotten it or are going to pretend it never happened. I certainly am not going to accuse them of running away. In any event the NT rejects that Jesus was a Levite. 

When Saul was anointed as king. When David was anointed as king.  What was the procedure? God brought Saul to the prophet. Samuel anointed Saul in front of the nation? Not at first but in a private ceremony. A prophet of God, Samuel anointed Saul with oil with no witnesses per se.  The Spirit of God came upon him.  When David was anointed, Samuel was told to fill his horn with oil. The prophet went to Bethlehem where David's family was. All the family was lined up without David. God chose not on looks or strength but his own reason - and when David was called to come - the prophet knew and anointed him with oil and the Spirit came upon him. Both of these private ceremonies were not done in the full viewing of the public domain - as a king before the people - yes later both were confirmed in front of the people. But the common elements here were a prophet of God, the pouring of oil and the reception of the Holy Spirit. 

Saul as you will know was from the tribe of Benjamin not Judah.  David was from Judah.  Jesus according to the gospels is from the tribe of Judah, not Benjamin.  Jesus was involved in a ceremony before the people of Israel, not a public ceremony - a private ceremony, and the person doing the ceremony was a prophet. And during this ceremony, the gospels say God spoke from the heavens - this is my son in whom I am well pleased - obvious reference to Psalm 2 and also to Abraham and Isaac in Genesis.  Psalm 2 is incidentally used in ancient Israel as part of the kingly ceremony and ordination and even today, incidentally part of the British Monarch's ordination service.  The Holy Spirit also came upon Jesus.  The missing element as I have indicated before was the oil.   And for that I don't have a satisfactory answer. Some suggest that Holy Spirit is often symbolized by oil or that oil and the Spirit are closely connected. Yet, in both Saul and David's ceremony, oil was still used which suggests that even if the Spirit of God is symbolized by the same - the oil was still required. Others suggest that the prophet Samuel used a branch from a Hyssop Tree in his ceremony of baptism - in order to baptize thousands and that John's practice was in accord with the ancient ritual - which combined water with oil as a matter of law-and which when we go back to numbers is clearly a possibility. Yet,  unless we engage with that background - which many people do not - then there is no obvious mention of oil in the baptism that John performed. 

In my view - Jesus' was called to the prophet of God, like Saul and like David. A prophet conducted a ceremony - unlike other practices going on around him -  God called him his Son in line with the Messianic Psalm of the King. and the Holy Spirit fell upon him in accord with the other two anointing of kings.  For me the oil is a missing ingredient - although I am also happy to engage with the ancient biblical practice of mixing water with oils.  The question is - what else needs to be included for the anointing to be in the same ilk as Saul and David?  What else needs to be expressed for this to be conclusive of what was happening - except the very words within the context saying this is what was going on.  

I agree that both King and Priest ought not be mixed up and combined again because of the problems associated with what the bible calls the sin nature.  As is often said - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  This is why David could not be the messiah and why the son of David, Solomon could not either.  Only someone - who was born of both GOD and HUMANITY - in the form of the Messiah could succeed in this role - because their nature was tainted by sin nature of humanity. 

The gospels declare that Jesus' father was the Holy Spirit.  Christians claim Jesus was FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN.  This is our explanation. 


Topic's author
#41
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen, you are so delightfully clever.  May we all worship the very ground you walk on.

 I am cleverer that you will ever live to be, Reverend.  And If I were ever to be  worshipped or revered , I would hope it would be on my own merit and  honest a god, hard researched  for years of dedication to debunking these unreliable and ambiguous scriptures as they presented to us in the NT.   And not the fake merit and false  that you  have awarded yourself.



In the original post about Jesus' baptism, I addressed the question of why Jesus was baptized despite the fact that he did not sin.

You did , with assumptions and speculation and stuff made up on the hoof. You even related it to circumspection.. But  I asked you where was this "very clear BIBLICAL evidence" that you say is in the bible?  You disappeared and well before the Brother came back from his break.  So why don't you go back to the  relevant thread and pick it up from there.>>>>   #42  Stephen


You took a very long time to get this topic despite me asking you - you just said "I don't recall it" suggesting by implication, had not.  

  The first time you challenged me for evidence for my Sons of God claim was when you referred it to me here ON SOMEONE ELSES THREAD  AND NEVER BEFORE!!  HERE>>>>>#21

I then created a thread especially for you.

And the term I used were exactly these words " I don't ever remember being asked to "prove" this claim/ my claim before , but still here we are." #1
And wrote this because you used the words " "You have still to produce ...... #21  Tradesecret  So simply look at the time stamps.


AND I  clued you in on that very thread that the whole of Israel were called  the sons of god  BY GOD and with BIBLICAL evidence. When I wrote this>> 

"Oh and just to leave you with something to ponder, the whole nation of IS-RA-EL was gods "son".  And oddly he also called them His "first born".  I told you, you simply do not understand your own fkn scriptures.   "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn"    Why do I feel a biblical re-write coming on".#22   Stephen  Added10.21.20 08:06AM



Now is all you have to do is show me where before10.20.20 10:52PM  you asked me for evidence that all kings of Israel were called  Sons of God.


why have you side-stepped Rosends question to you?

I didn't notice any questions from Rosends. maybe he can repeat them for me.  


Mock me all you like - as you will no doubt do - that is your area of expertise - ad hominen attacks. 

 I don't believe I have "mocked you" (  as much as you deserve to be) .. I have though, shown you for the biblical ignorant fake you are, Reverend. And is all your response is , is to play victim.

 You won't for get now will you  >>> go back to the  relevant thread and pick it up from there.>>>>   #42  Stephen







#42
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Much of what you wrote, interesting though it is, is steeped in a theology I happen to reject, based on texts to which I cede no authority. I shan't argue at cross purposes -- I wouldn't ask you to adopt my belief system and (no offense) I don't intend to adopt yours. Just a couple of notes, though:

Saul was from Benjamin, because the Davidic line (and the promise that the Judah-based monarchy) had not started yet. So later kings had to be from Judah/David.

You wrote "I agree that both King and Priest ought not be mixed up and combined again because of the problems associated with what the bible calls the sin nature.  As is often said - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  This is why David could not be the messiah and why the son of David, Solomon could not either. "

Except that both David and Solomon WERE messiahs! The term "messiah" is just the anglicized "mashiach" -- one who was anointed. Both the high priest and the king were anointed (with one exception, unimportant right now) so there have been many "messiahs" in that there have been many anointed people. The future messiah, in Jewish thought, will be a king of the Davidic line and he will be anointed as such. He will not be a priest.
#43
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret


.
COPY AND PASTE #1.   Tradesecret, you seemingly are having a very hard time with this blatant truthful post relative to your obvious ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, that in the name of Jesus, I have posted towards you. WHY? You have insidiously TRIED in vain to coverup the following post to prevent you from further embarrassment in front of the membership and Jesus. At least comically TRY to address it, okay?  Jesus and I thank you in advance. :)


Brother D. Thomas post #36 within this thread:

TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman NOW, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery,


YOUR QUOTE TRYING SO HARD TO GET OUT OF YOUR EMBARRASSING PREDICAMENT IN TRUE "LAWYER TALK MUMBO-JUMBO": " Oh Hello again Brother - thanks again for your delightful reply.  Did I misunderstand? Sorry.  I thought you were asking me how I came across as a male before - when I was unaware I had described myself that way - and in fact had not put anything into my profile and now after I put my profile up I identify as a female? Is that not what you asked me?" 

You act as though everyone is as dumbfounded as you are and cannot reason regarding your embarrassing situation! Priceless! LOL. In addressing your biblical ignorance, we used the noun "he" in a generic sense to you, AND YOU NEVER CORRECTED US, that is, until you ungodly changed yourself to a "she"  in your current vacant biography. 


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 BARRING THE FACT OF YOU USING A "MALE" PERSON IN YOUR IMAGE AREA,  SIMPLY EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING CONTRADICTION THAT YOU ARE TRYING SO HARD TO ESCAPE FROM AND THEN WE WILL GO FROM THERE, UNDERSTOOD?:

Tradesecret's Biography where the Gender is MALE 

Tradesecret's Biography where the Gender is now FEMALE


BEGIN:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


#44
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen
How we come to develop the cognitive capacities for belief and doubt has been an enduring focus of psychological and philosophical inquiry. Recently, these processes have begun to be studied from a neuroscience perspective, and there have been efforts to map out the neural bases for belief and doubt. For example, neuroimaging studies have shown that tasks involving evaluation and doubting of beliefs activate the prefrontal cortex, among other brain regions.  This has lead to the development of the False Tagging Theory (FTT), a neuroanatomically-based theoretical model of the belief and doubt process . In brief, the FTT asserts that 1) the process of belief occurs in two stages, mental representation and assessment; 2) all ideas that are represented are initially believed, but a secondary psychological analysis (assessment) can produce disbelief (or doubt) 3) the mental representation of the idea, which is initially believed or regarded as true, must be “tagged” to indicate false value, producing doubt . 4) the prefrontal cortex is necessary for the “false tag” in the assessment component of belief; and 5) “false tags” are affective in nature, akin to the central tenets of  the “somatic marker hypothesis.” The FTT predicts that focal damage to the prefrontal cortex should result in a “doubt deficit,” accompanied by a vulnerability to believe inaccurate information. There is already some evidence in accord with this hypothesis, including the findings that prefrontal patients 1) often have a general personality trait that is overconfident, boastful, grandiose, obstinate, and egocentric ( Trump?) , indicating a lack of normative doubt; 2) are more gullible toward disreputable characters and 3) are more vulnerable to deceptive advertising . A “doubt deficit” or a disruption in the false tagging mechanism may also explain other cognitive deficits and abnormal behaviors in prefrontal patients, such as perseveration, confabulation, and distractibility.
Topic's author
#45
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
last paragraph #40  the Reverend Tradesecret   wrote: This is why David could not be the messiah and why the son of David, Solomon could not either.  


rosends replied: #42  Except that both David and Solomon WERE messiahs! The term "messiah" is just the anglicized "mashiach" -- one who was anointed. Both the high priest and the king were anointed (with one exception, unimportant right now) so there have been many "messiahs" in that there have been many anointed people. The future messiah, in Jewish thought, will be a king of the Davidic line and he will be anointed as such. He will not be a priest.



Over to you Reverend>

I am sure you can wriggle out of this little dilemma with all of your qualifications as a Criminal lawyer not to mention in your religious capacities as both a qualified    Pastor & Chaplin.


#46
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Now is all you have to do is show me where before10.20.20 10:52PM  you asked me for evidence that all kings of Israel were called  Sons of God.
Here is one. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557/post-links/193292. Please notice the time stamp. 08.16.20 12:42AM

In relation to your argument that every king of Israel is called Son of God, I say prove it. If for instance I find one king of Israel who was not called Son of God, does that prove you wrong? And I certainly hope you would not be foolish enough to rely upon an argument from silence. Yet, what you fail to realise that even if every king of Israel is called the Son of God - this does not logically prevent Jesus from being GOD. How about you prove the point? It is quite logically possible that a proper heir of the throne of David could not only be called the Son of God as a title - but in fact be the TRUE SON of GOD. To say otherwise is something that you need to prove. 

I will continue to look for the others. 
#47
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen - LOL@ you.  What did I inject into the passage? You made the suggestion that Jesus is not God. And that this verse proves that. I indicated I totally agreed with the verse because it is not talking about Jesus as God but as man. I indicated and remain of the view that God here is referring to the Trinity - which in the Christian view includes the Son as the Second member of the Triune God. It does not refer to Jesus as God just as it does not refer to the Father or the Holy Spirit as God. Timothy uses the term God. In Christian understanding this God is the Trinity. And yet when Christians read this passage they are thinking of the Trinity. This verse rather confirms the twin doctrine - of Jesus being fully Man.  Even that is an incredible thing to think about. No other man could do this - what was it that so special about him? Not just being a king of Israel - because no other king of Israel could do this? In fact it had to with his priesthood status - in the order of Melchisadek .Still I suppose I don't expect you to understand. you are still ripped because I did not try and make out that this verse is incorrect. It is in fact a wonderful verse and confirms the Christian doctrine. 

Here is another reference to your notion of Jesus as king of Israel. Although not directly asking for evidence to prove the same, it was an opportunity for you to engage which you chose to avoid or run away. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557/post-links/193706
#48
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
But in the same post I certainly mention you are avoiding the issue. Which you did. But somehow - you just conveniently say you did not eve recall it. LOL! 


Well no. I am not in a muddle. Obviously by your reply you are.  Jesus is Fully God and Jesus is Fully Man. Not half god and half man - fully God and fully Man. I am simply repeating Christian doctrine. You know it - but you want to say that I am doing it.  LOL @ your nonsense.  Jesus ate food, he cried, he got tired, he slept, all things he did as a man.  Christians totally affirm that Jesus is man.  Yet we also affirm he is God.  Not just a son of God because he was born into the line of David. I notice you have not attempted to justify this reasoning yet. I hope you get around to it. I am genuinely interested in knowing whether every king in the line of David is called the Son of GOD. Of course it does not prove your point even if you prove it - certainly it adds a plank in your argument - I can see that - so far as we forget every thing else in the bible - or write it of as mythology.  

Topic's author
#49
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Now is all you have to do is show me where before10.20.20 10:52PM  you asked me for evidence that all kings of Israel were called  Sons of God.
Here is one. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557/post-links/193292. Please notice the time stamp. 08.16.20 12:42AM

Then I stand corrected and apologise. You had indeed asked my to prove my claim.


But somehow - you just conveniently say you did not eve recall it. LOL! 

Which is true.  And when I was reminded , I dedicated a whole  new thread to the subject. Any news on the thread showing us your god in a good light? 


I will continue to look for the others. 

Please do. And I will do like- wise.  Should I make a list  of questions that have gone unanswered by you and post them on the open forum? Or is that against the rules?
 Again. I apologise. 


#50
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,

thanks for apologizing. I do not lie. I tell it how it is. And sometimes, like you, I miss things. It does not mean I am avoiding them. 

I will note for clarities sake, you posted the new topic and for that I thank you.  But it was not because you believed I had asked you. 

I will take it you did it on good faith.  That is quite different - but something which I respect. 

I only ask you do me the same curtesy. Not the respect - but the good faith that I am not avoiding or running away from questions. 
Topic's author
#51
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I only ask you do me the same curtesy. Not the respect - but the good faith that I am not avoiding or running away from questions. 

 I will go over all my threads and remind you of questions that have gone unanswered by you, when I have the time.  Here is the most recent #1  Added10.28.20 10:56AM Three days ago. And is all you manged here was a snotty reply without addressing the question. NINE post later#9 Tradesecret 






#52
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
What is it about you? I don't care that you miss some of the questions I ask you.  When you do, it is not immediately my thought that you are avoiding them. 

You don't need to start a list of all of the questions you think I miss. Just ask me. And when I see it and am not answering already a boxload of other questions, then I will get to it. 

You and the Brother shoot from the hip. Not with a pistol but with a shotgun.  This means that you both say lots and ask many questions. Most of it is all over the place and sometimes I find that specific questions need a more direct answer than some of the others.   

Some of your questions are tongue in cheek. Many don't deserve an answer. Others you are asking - even though you already know the answer.  You are no fool. I have never pretended that you are - although perhaps sometimes I have called the same.  

All I am saying  is that I will answer when I am ready to do so. Not simply because you ask a question. 
Topic's author
#53
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Stop it!  You in your own admission  simply point blank refuse to answer simple yes or no questions.  They may  appear to be "tongue in cheek"  to you, but I  ask questions about these  unreliable ambiguous scriptures because I want them answering by the likes of YOU, YOU that claims to be qualified to answer them  in the capacity as both  Chaplin and Pastor! Reverend!!!!!

I don't ask questions for the fun of asking them; I have perfectly good reasons for asking the questions that I  do ask.   Such as here where you didn't take too long to put on your uncalled for sarcasm after I politely asked you not to turn a new thread into an argument but to leave if you didn't have an answer #1 <<<<<<<<<<<<< I asked this question because I have reason to believe John did perform other functions,  I simply cannot prove it. That is another thing I always do, I admit I cannot prove or have no evidence for a claims I may make.  Unlike you on this thread here>>>https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4736-then-why-baptize-him where I am still waiting for your " very clear biblical evidence" that Jesus was a king and anointed as such.
Topic's author
#54
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
last paragraph #40  the Reverend Tradesecret   wrote: This is why David could not be the messiah and why the son of David, Solomon could not either.  


rosends replied: #42  Except that both David and Solomon WERE messiahs! The term "messiah" is just the anglicized "mashiach" -- one who was anointed. Both the high priest and the king were anointed (with one exception, unimportant right now) so there have been many "messiahs" in that there have been many anointed people. The future messiah, in Jewish thought, will be a king of the Davidic line and he will be anointed as such. He will not be a priest.



Over to you Reverend>

I am sure you can wriggle out of this little dilemma with all of your qualifications as a Criminal lawyer not to mention in your religious capacities as both a qualified    Pastor & Chaplin.


#55
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
rosend, thanks for your response. 

Much of what you wrote, interesting though it is, is steeped in a theology I happen to reject, based on texts to which I cede no authority. I shan't argue at cross purposes -- I wouldn't ask you to adopt my belief system and (no offense) I don't intend to adopt yours. Just a couple of notes, though:
It is not for me to tell you how to live your own life.  I accept you do not accept texts that I do accept. Nevertheless, for me they are relevant because they form part of my tradition even as yours form yours.  No offence is taken. 

Saul was from Benjamin, because the Davidic line (and the promise that the Judah-based monarchy) had not started yet. So later kings had to be from Judah/David.
Partly correct. Saul was from Benjamin. Agreed. David's royal line had not commenced when Samuel anointed Saul. As I recall and God did not want a human king at all. God did not Israel to be like all the others nations that had a king.  God gave the people what they wanted - perhaps what they deserved.  However, Saul did not want to obey God, so God took his throne away from him and his line - although, technically at least David was his Son in Law. (at least until Saul gave David's wife to another) And interestingly, Saul's Son became one of David's closest friends, almost a brother, although he was probably most likely the age of David's father or grandfather.   But they covenanted together.  

After David was anointed king and then eventually crowned king, his line became the royal line.  But certainly there was no expectation that all kings of Israel would be of David's line. Hence why Israel after Solomon has no Davidic kings - and why David's line continued in Jerusalem. Was it a command that only David's line be king? It would be nice to see the reference and command for this. 

You wrote "I agree that both King and Priest ought not be mixed up and combined again because of the problems associated with what the bible calls the sin nature.  As is often said - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  This is why David could not be the messiah and why the son of David, Solomon could not either. "

Except that both David and Solomon WERE messiahs! The term "messiah" is just the anglicized "mashiach" -- one who was anointed. Both the high priest and the king were anointed (with one exception, unimportant right now) so there have been many "messiahs" in that there have been many anointed people. The future messiah, in Jewish thought, will be a king of the Davidic line and he will be anointed as such. He will not be a priest.
Yes.  I disagree with you here. I do not take the view that just because David and Solomon were anointed that this made them the Messiah. Yes, the Hebrew word for messiah is the one you mentioned.  Yet there is a difference between anointed and "the anointed one". All of the priests of Israel were anointed. As were all of the kings of both Israel and Judah.  Indeed even the people of Israel themselves at various times were anointed. Yet, if all anointed are the messiah, then the promise of a future messiah would become redundant.  It is a bit like saying to someone "you are special, but you know we are all special". It actually makes "special" non-special. 

I do take the view as well that David and Solomon were in some ways more than just anointed.  I think that they were types of the Messiah to come. Not the messiah per se - but such shadows of the one to come that people would look at them and recognize some special quality about them that not only inspires them but points them to the real Messiah.  In some ways they are like John the Baptist.  He too was not the messiah - but he pointed to the messiah. The OT promises that the Messiah would one day come to rescue his people. 

Many in John the Baptist's time even as others before him, such as Nehemiah and Ezra, thought the Messiah was going to save them from their captives. Either the Persians, or the Romans, or the Greeks - but God's picture was much bigger than any of these plans.  And when we look through the history of Israel - we can see this picture, can't we?  God from the beginning was not just looking to rescue his people from some kind of economic system, or some kind of political system, or some kind of religious system, but from that which is at the heart of humanity and had been since the Garden of Eden.  This is one of the reasons why most people missed the Messiah when he did come - they were looking for a different kind of Messiah.  One who would free them from the Romans. Today people are still looking for a superman - this is one reason the Marvel Movies are such a hit - we want a messiah to save us from the capitalists - or from the Aliens, or from the evil in the world, or from those wanting to exploit the environment or those wanting to exploit children. 

But none of us want to confront the real issue of the heart. Sin.  And while that is the case - people will continue to look for a superman figure. But God is not Superman. And that is all the difference in the world. 

Can you by the way - find for me in the OT where the future king in David's line will not be a priest? Thanks. 

#56
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Over to you Reverend>

I am sure you can wriggle out of this little dilemma with all of your qualifications as a Criminal lawyer not to mention in your religious capacities as both a qualified    Pastor & Chaplin.
I have told you I am not a reverend.  I am not.  Yes, I know how the titles are given in our church.  

What is there to wriggle out of here? 

King David was anointed.  Solomon was anointed.  Messiah means anointed. The Greek transliteration is Christ. This means anointed. 

Messiah means "anointed one".  But not all anointed are the messiah.   If you knew the difference between a participle, an adjective, an adverb, and a noun, this might help or assist you more. 

By the way - you mention my qualifications more that I ever have. In fact I resisted for a long time giving any information about myself - because I thought it was neither yours nor the Brothers business and I knew - and I have been proved right - that if I ever simply gave into your demands - that you and the Brother would use them in such as way as to diminish who I was.  

In relation to David and Solomon - neither are referred to as the Messiah - in the sense of the Messiah who would come and restore the kingdom or indeed any other kind of sense.  David was in a covenant with God - relating specifically to his sons remaining on the throne forever. Obviously, if it was David's son - it was not David. David had considered that any of his son's might have been the messiah, Absalom, etc, and Solomon.  Solomon was the first Son of David to be king over all Israel.  He was also the last as far as the literal kingdom was concerned. And is kingdom is described as wealthy and great - even the amount of gold was labeled - as the ultimate earthly kingdom - with the interesting number 666 tonnes.

After his death - the kingdom split into two. David no longer had heirs on the throne of Israel - only in Jerusalem - the southern kingdom of Israel.  This line coming to an end in Babylon.  Not the line of David, but line of David's son sitting on a throne in Israel or Jerusalem. Of course that causes an issue with the promise that David will always have a son forever on his throne. But that is a different question and not relevant here. 

The answer to Rosends' question is the difference between an anointed and "the anointed". The difference is an article.  Jesus was not just a carpenter in Nazareth. He was THE carpenter. 


#57
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
After David wasanointed king and then eventually crowned king, his line became the royalline.  But certainly there was no expectation that all kings of Israelwould be of David's line. Hence why Israel after Solomon has no Davidic kings -and why David's line continued in Jerusalem. Was it a command that only David'sline be king? It would be nice to see the reference and command for this. 
 
 
The line afterSolomon was fractured because of the civil war which led to the creation of 2nations, Judah and Israel. This happened during the reign of Rechav’am, son ofSolomon. The Solomonic line continues as the kings of Judah, the 2+ tribes whostill remain today. I Kings 11, 38-39 spells out that the dynasty goes fromDavid through Solomon to Solomon’s descendants. The lasting chastisement on theseed of David (though not eternal) was the limitation of their reign to onlythe 2+ tribes.
 
  
Yes.  I disagreewith you here. I do not take the view that just because David and Solomon wereanointed that this made them the Messiah. Yes, the Hebrew word for messiah isthe one you mentioned.  Yet there is a difference between anointed and"the anointed one".
 
That difference isartificial. In Hebrew, the difference is the initial definite article. Thatconstruction (as an article-noun) never occurs in the Judaic written bible (thesame letters appear 4 times as “who was anointed” referring to the high priest butthe vowel points are subtly different). Creating a distinction which isextra-textual because it justifies an understanding doesn’t sit well with me.
 
 
 All of the priests of Israel were anointed. Aswere all of the kings of both Israel and Judah.  Indeed even the people ofIsrael themselves at various times were anointed. Yet, if all anointed are themessiah, then the promise of a future messiah would become redundant.  Itis a bit like saying to someone "you are special, but you know we are allspecial". It actually makes "special" non-special. 
 
I know that the highpriest was anointed with the anointing oil (and, initially, Aaron’s son’s were)and a couple other special priests were (such as during war time) but I didn’tknow that all priests were. Do you have a textual citation for that? Also,objects in the temple were anointed. But regular people were not anointed. Thefuture messiah will simply be a king and will be anointed because, as you said,kings are anointed.
 
 
I do take the view aswell that David and Solomon were in some ways more than just anointed.  Ithink that they were types of the Messiah to come. Not the messiah per se - butsuch shadows of the one to come that people would look at them and recognizesome special quality about them that not only inspires them but points them tothe real Messiah.  In some ways they are like John the Baptist.  Hetoo was not the messiah - but he pointed to the messiah. The OT promises thatthe Messiah would one day come to rescue his people. 
 
This reading asforeshadowing is also alien to my understanding. As for what you see as “OTpromises” – this might not jibe with what I understand in the text. The Jewishunderstanding of the nature of messianic promises and of the messiah was prettywell established so to state that the masses missed the messiah ignores thatthe claimant, along with many other claimants simply did not fulfill those wellestablished criteria. If you study Judaism, you will see that no one is lookingfor a superman. In fact, one of the major arguments against Jesus is that themessiah need not perform any miracles – he is to be a man who leads throughrighteousness and that’s it. If you think we are looking for a superman, thenyou have a mistaken understanding of the Jewish messianic belief.
 
 
Can you by the way -find for me in the OT where the future king in David's line will not be apriest? Thanks. 
 
 
The priests were from the Aaronic line, the tribe of Levi.The kings were from the Davidic line, the tribe of Judah. One can’t be from 2tribes. Even if you understand 2 Sam 8 and the discussion of 2 of David’s sonsas literal “priests” (which is not how it is traditionally understood inJudaism), that exception would be limited to the 2 named people and no latergenerations.

Topic's author
#58
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Over to you Reverend>

I am sure you can wriggle out of this little dilemma with all of your qualifications as a Criminal lawyer not to mention in your religious capacities as both a qualified    Pastor & Chaplin.
I have told you I am not a reverend.  I am not.  Yes, I know how the titles are given in our church.  
But you are. You just didn't know it Reverend.  You tell us  that you are A lawyer and both A Chaplin and A Pastor. I have shown you what the title is and how a Pastor should be addressed. So If you are not  to be addressed as  A  Reverend  then you are  not  A Pastor.

,LOOOOOOK! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bruce Byers Retired Navy chaplain

The differences between a pastor and a reverend can be drawn by looking at the function of these labels when they are attached to a certain name.“Pastor” is addressed to a noun, or specifically a person, the leader or the minister of the church. On the other hand, “reverend,” according to the dictionary, is an adjective, addressed to an honorable person who is worthy to be revered. It is used as a title of respect applied or prefixed to the name of a member of a clergy or a religious order.“Pastor” is a function or occupation while “reverend” is an honorable title. For example, Smith, the minister of the church, can be called “Pastor Smith” if you are referring to his position as the leader of the church, but you can also call him “Reverend Smith” if you are addressing him with respect and honor, the same with “Honorable Smith.” Summing it up, you can call him “Reverend Pastor Smith.”
So which Reverend are you Pastor?  " The Honourable"?  Or  " The  Reverend to be revered? Or is it both?  It makes no difference to me. But I do think  it simply respectful to address you by your proper title. 


What is there to wriggle out of here?  King David was anointed.  Solomon was anointed.  Messiah means anointed. The Greek transliteration is Christ. This means anointed. 

 10/10. My ten year old grandchild knows this. 
I have just read your post above. #55 to rosends.    You have simply said you don't agree then made all sorts of contradictory claims.  I honestly do not believe that you actaully know what the word  messiah means.


By the way - you mention my qualifications more that I ever have.  In fact I resisted for a long time giving any information about myself - because I thought it was neither yours nor the Brothers business and I knew -


AND I didn't even ask you if you had any qualification, did I, not once?  You volunteered that information without any inquiry or prompting or coaxing from me. Rather a silly move for one claiming to be , among other things,  a  Lawyer!  here #20  

"  I am a lawyer. [......................] But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications". #20  Tradesecret

Personally I have never come across a Lawyer that instructs his "clients" to surrender any information ,especially when not even  asked for.  Especially a  lawyer that instructs  "ALL  his  clients never to answer a yes or no question". 

"I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers". #15 Tradesecret







and I have been proved right - that if I ever simply gave into your demands - that you and the Brother would use them in such as way as to diminish who I was.  

 How ever could I "diminish" what  it is that you claim  to be?   I cannot excommunicate you. I cannot disbar you. I think you are over reacting again Reverend.  And I have never DEMANDED anything.  But you did tell  me not so long ago that IF you ever forgot to respond , that I should politely remind you instead of accusing you of running away. 

I think that you diminish your own qualifications and BOTH your titles by your lack of biblical knowledge.  Are you now going to level a charge of bullying and harassment against me. 



 The answer to Rosends' question is the difference between an anointed and "the anointed". The difference is an article.  Jesus was not just a carpenter in Nazareth. He was THE carpenter. 
Nagger if I recall . Simply meaning a wise, literate. teacher.  I don't mind being corrected on that.