How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

Author: Yassine

Posts

Total: 494
#241
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret



.
Stephen,

Isn't it very sad to watch Miss Tradesecret flail around like a fish out of water subsequent to us biblically and easily schooling her? At what point does she realize that she has absolutely no place within this prestigious Religion Forum on DEBATEART because of her complete Bible stupidity and ignorance, notwithstanding her ungodly gender as a female in always going directly against Jesus' command within 1 Timothy 2:12!

Case in point, look at her feeble post #238 in where she "thinks" she can prove me wrong with a VISION of John in Revelation 12:1 that shows a woman in heaven, whereas I had to Bible Slap her Silly®️ again in putting this 2nd class women in her place with my godly post #240!

As Jesus and I have stated biblically ad infinitum, there will be NO WOMEN IN HEAVEN SUBSEQUENT TO THEIR DEMISE, especially since we had to put up with them while upon earth!  "A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands." (Proverbs 27:15-16) 


.

#242
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
At what point does she realize that she has absolutely no place within this prestigious Religion Forum on DEBATEART because of her complete Bible stupidity and ignorance, 

As I have already pointed out, Brother. There is no cure for narcissistic stupidity. 
#243
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
 So this will be a actual woman, with the actual moon at her feet? And twelve stars about her head , will it, bible dunce?
So will that be a literal response Stephen or something else? 
#244
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Brother - given you literal stance on things, it seems now you want to show everyone what a hypocrite you are. 

There was a woman in heaven - whether metaphorical or literal - who cares? You said there was no woman EVER in heaven. 

So whether the woman returns to earth or not is irrelevant unless of course you have a different understanding of ever.


Fact is - you are incorrect.  
#245
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I don't need to prove you wrong - your words do that without any help. 


#246
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

Tradesecret wrote: Yet the Bible says in Revelation 12:1.

"a great and wonderous sign appeared in Heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head".


Who should we believe Brother DT who is a fake and a fraud or Jesus?  Both can't be right. One must be wrong.  Either there are no women in heaven or Revelation 12:1 is incorrect


 So this will be a actual woman, with the actual moon at her feet? And twelve stars about her head , will it, bible dunce?

So will that be a literal response Stephen or something else? 
Of course it is a lateral response you clown.

 So you don't have a clue what that verse  is even referring to although the clue is in the verse itself.. 


#247
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret

.
Miss Tradesecret, as a woman shown herewith: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy that goes directly against Jesus’ words in 1 Timothy 2:12 in not to teach and in being SILENT towards men,

YOUR QUOTE IN HOPING TO GET OUT OF YOUR EMBARRASSING PREDICAMENT RELATING TO YOUR MISCONSTRUED POST #238 WHERE YOU FELL FLAT UPON YOUR FACE AGAIN! "There was a woman in heaven - whether metaphorical or literal - who cares? You said there was no woman EVER in heaven."

The said women that you had shown was a VISION, I repeat, a VISION by John in Revelation 12, and NOT a literal woman, GET IT BIBLE FOOL?!  Then you have the audacity to state, "who cares if it is not a real woman" is the topic at hand, GET IT? 

Furthermore, tell me, what part of my quote herewith didn't you understand in my post #241?  "NO WOMEN IN HEAVEN SUBSEQUENT TO THEIR DEMISE"


Miss Tradesecret, It is amazing in how you can continue to show yourself within this forum as being the number 1 continued Bible fool!


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT TRIES IN VAIN ONCE AGAIN TO GET OUT OF HER MISCONSTRUED QUOTES AGAIN WILL BE ...?


#248
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
The said women that you had shown was a VISION, I repeat, a VISION by John in Revelation 12, and NOT a literal woman, GET IT BIBLE FOOL?!  Then you have the audacity to state, Tradesecret wrote: "who cares if it is not a real woman". -  is the topic at hand, GET IT? 

Well he should "care", shouldn't he, Brother?   But is clearly displaying his bible ignorance once again.

#249
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret


.
Miss Tradesecret, as a woman shown herewith: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy that goes directly against Jesus’ words in 1 Timothy 2:12 whereas she is not to teach and in being SILENT towards men,

I forgot to ask you, whereas the people that you allegedly preach too in an ungodly manner, GOD FORBID, or your friends as well, have you ever told them that you believe in offspring that curse their parents should be killed like as shown you did in the following link to you by me herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=9&post_number=204

I have to admit, your approval shown above, in the name of Jesus, where you say it is okay to kill offspring that curse their parents, is a gutsy call to say the least in the 21st century!  WOW!  


.


#250
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret


.

Stephen,

YOUR QUOTE REGARDING THE #1 BIBLE FOOL MISS TRADESECRET: "Well he should "care", shouldn't he, Brother?   But is clearly displaying his bible ignorance once again."

Yes, poor Miss Tradesecret thought that no one was going to read the rest of the story in Revelation 12, whereas once again at her embarrassing expense, I continued to read the entire chapter in showing that she was "cherry picking again" a certain ONE verse that she "THOUGHT" was substantiating her aloof premise, NOT!  

As I have said many times, Miss Tradesecret assumes that the membership is as Bible Stupid as she is, and therefore will not pick up on her outright Devil Speak in trying to change the scriptures to her liking to "try" and make her point!  It is truly laughable that she puts herself in such dumbfounded positions, but she would be Miss Tradesecret if she didn't! LOL!

.





#251
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
If only we could find out who is better at scripture deciphering / translation. 
A scale if you will. 
Or
Should we ask a hundred priests and go with the top response.  
Or perhaps 
Ask a dozen Biblical scholars.  ( thats 13 ) and go with the most common response. 

You guys are all very good at scripture meanings. 

mmmmmmmmm  scriptures .
A game the whole family can play. 




#252
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

Watch Miss Tradesecret RUN AWAY from my post #249 above that explicitly shows that she agrees in the killing of offspring that curse their parents in the link shown, just watch!  Do you want to take a bet in her doing so?  I say she will runaway from the above post for at least 6 days with yet more "girly excuses," even subsequent to me reminding her of doing so!  What do you say?

Seriously, what would we do without Miss Tradesecret, in using her as example in showing the membership and visitors her outright biblical stupidity and ignorance, in "How not to be a Christian?"  LOL!

Additionally, she is to SCARED to bring up the topic again of the Biblical axiom that women are not going to heaven, shhhhh, mums the word for Miss Tradesecret upon this revealing topic, shhhhhhhh!


.
#253
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Imagine not being very good at knowing scripture meanings.  

Imagine being a AVERAGE scripture knowerer. 
No way . 

Thats why We've  currently  2 billion plus theists in the ( TOP 100 )  Of all time at translating the scripts. 
And  750,000  are current #1.  


#254
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull


.
Deb,

YOUR QUOTE OBVIOUSLY RELATING TO THE # 1 BIBLE FOOL MISS TRADESECRET: " Of all time at translating the scripts. And  750,000  are current #1. "

Whereas as explicitly shown ad infinitum by many of the membership, Miss Tradesecret IS THE #1 MISCONSTRUED BIBLE TRANSLATOR of all time within this esteemed forum, period!  Her Devil Speak is without question!

.

#255
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen


Tradesecret wrote: Yet the Bible says in Revelation 12:1.

"a great and wonderous sign appeared in Heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head".


Who should we believe Brother DT who is a fake and a fraud or Jesus?  Both can't be right. One must be wrong.  Either there are no women in heaven or Revelation 12:1 is incorrect


 So this will be a actual woman, with the actual moon at her feet? And twelve stars about her head , will it, bible dunce?

So will that be a literal response Stephen or something else? 
Of course it is a lateral response you clown.

 So you don't have a clue what that verse  is even referring to although the clue is in the verse itself.. 
Literal or lateral.  Hmmm. Not only do you give your own spin on what words mean - but it seems you are quite arbitrary about how they are spelt.  

All I have done is what you do.  I have lifted a verse from the bible - and used it literally like you. I have as you do - disregarded the context and exposed you and the Brother as frauds.    I have not once indicated what it means so your verbal diarrhea will only fall on your face. 

Oh and I am not a clown.  
#256
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
The said women that you had shown was a VISION, I repeat, a VISION by John in Revelation 12, and NOT a literal woman, GET IT BIBLE FOOL?!  Then you have the audacity to state, "who cares if it is not a real woman" is the topic at hand, GET IT? 
Yes so what?  My point is Brother D Thomas has heard it from Jesus that EVERY WORD in the bible is literal and that we are not supposed to question anything. Hence - whatever is said - whether or not I think it is a vision or narrative or history is irrelevant.  

Now of course - you may have changed your mind and now consider that not every word is to be taken literally. Which if it is the case, then we can go back to the question of whether death is supposed to be understood as literal or convenanal?  

I am very happy to work with you - And if you could provide the measure of what is supposed to be "literal" as opposed to vision as opposed to symbolic or poetry as opposed to covenantal - that would be helpful.  

But until you do provide such a measure - then EVERY WORD according to Brother is literal including this woman in Heaven which contradicts Brother absolutely. And please try and not run away with more of your cowardly responses.  
#257
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Miss Tradesecret, as a woman shown herewith: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy that goes directly against Jesus’ words in 1 Timothy 2:12 whereas she is not to teach and in being SILENT towards men,

I forgot to ask you, whereas the people that you allegedly preach too in an ungodly manner, GOD FORBID, or your friends as well, have you ever told them that you believe in offspring that curse their parents should be killed like as shown you did in the following link to you by me herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=9&post_number=204

I have to admit, your approval shown above, in the name of Jesus, where you say it is okay to kill offspring that curse their parents, is a gutsy call to say the least in the 21st century!  WOW!  
  As I have repeatedly said and as you conveniently continue to run away from and ignore - is that the punishment  of any offence demonstrates the seriousness of the offence.  Cursing parents is a complete dishonoring of the family unit.  It is one of the most serious offences in humanity - because it is attacking one of the basic institutions in society.  Now you may take the view that the family unit is not valuable but others do take the view it is absolutely vital to our humanity.  Hence - to attack it - deserves the most serious consequences. 

Nevertheless you also ignore what I present to my congregation - which is that covenantal death is not to be automatically equated with a physical death. In church, for example, death is understood covenantally by excluding people from Holy Communion. In the family, death is understood covenantally as disinheritance. In the State, death is understood covenantally with a maximum penalty of physical death.  In former times - the death sentence was commuted to other things - all which are equal in substance to death although not by physical death. Transportation for instance. Extradition. Expelled out of the nation. Even losing your vote. 


#258
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Literal or lateral.

Literal.
Typo you idiot. And if that is your only argument.  You may as well throw the towel in where this argument is concerned. 


 I have lifted a verse from the bible - and used it literally like you.

Ok so you take the verse to be literal. When it is clearly not to be taken literally. Which has ALSO been my argument since the day I came to the forum. Examples; "raising the dead" is not to be taken literally as I have explained what I believe it to mean many times. "Making a blind man see" is another example.  "Curing a leper" is another as is "water into wine".  Bible dunces such as yourself take these verses literally and call them "miracles" performed my a LITERAL "son of god"  .
I have maintained all along that these were no such thing and that they are simply initiations into different levels of the Jesus movement that he had learned and copied from the Qumran community.

So tell us;  what to your mind  does the verse that you have used actually mean if it is not to be taken literal, Reverend Munchausen?
 

"a great and wonderous sign appeared in Heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head". Revelation 12:1





#259
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

Ok so you take the verse to be literal. When it is clearly not to be taken literally. Which has ALSO been my argument since the day I came to the forum. Examples; "raising the dead" is not to be taken literally as I have explained what I believe it to mean many times. "Making a blind man see" is another example.  "Curing a leper" is another as is "water into wine".  Bible dunces such as yourself take these verses literally and call them "miracles" performed my a LITERAL "son of god"  .
I have maintained all along that these were no such thing and that they are simply initiations into different levels of the Jesus movement that he had learned and copied from the Qumran community.
Sorry old chap that is just a silly thing to say.  I said I lifted a verse "just like you". I never gave any reason - since you never do.  I think some things should be understood narratively or metaphorically. I steer away from the word literal because it is used as a weapon by idiots like you who have no clue what you are talking about. 

I can take the view that this verse is from revelation because it is clearly called a vision even by the author.  But the other verses and phrased you refer to are not  being referred to in the same way. For you to suggest so - requires that you provide the basis for it. A basis apart from - "I don't believe it is possible to be true literally".  You NEVER establish anything so helpful.  You reject miracles - fine. But that is not a basis for calling these things symbolic.  That is just your silly belief system not an argument. 

At least look at the language used. What did the author mean by it?  You never go there. Are you afraid? 

So tell us;  what to your mind  does the verse that you have used actually mean if it is not to be taken literal, Reverend Munchausen?
 
No. There is no need for me to do it. I am not claiming anything about it - except it is talking about a woman in heaven.  I don't care whether it is true or a vision. For me there is no need to take it any further. Brother twists the bible to make it mean something other than it does - he makes the claim that there is no woman in heaven.   Yet this verse clearly says - vision or not - a woman in heaven.   He can't deny this verse. He is simply trying to say it is not what it is saying. But only because he was so insistent that other verses meant what he said.  That dear Stephen is his problem not mine.  The fact is - it proves his to be nothing more than a fraud - which everyone knew anyway. 

And you know as I do - that it is not to be taken in a wooden sense - it is symbolic.  But so what? Even the symbol has to represent something to have any meaning.  We all know that what symbols are for.   



#260
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret


So tell us;  what to your mind  does the verse that you have used actually mean if it is not to be taken literal, Reverend Munchausen?
"a great and wonderous sign appeared in Heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head". Revelation 12:1
 
No. There is no need for me to do it.

 So you haven't a clue.  And no will be surprised that even with all of your self proclaimed theological education and "scientific methodology" that you claim to apply to scripture,  that you fail to answer.

Off you go then.


#261
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So you haven't a clue.  And no will be surprised that even with all of your self proclaimed theological education and "scientific methodology" that you claim to apply to scripture,  that you fail to answer.
Do you ACTUALLY think that this is going to goad me into responding and answering your question? You must be more naïve than you make out. 

As for any of my personal quibbles - you are the only one who cares for them in the manner than you do.  And why the adjective creepy is apt for you. 

Apart from the one page of matters I threw at you in order for you fill up your little hands, the times I  have mentioned personal matters is in response to other people on this forum. Not one of them have ever suggested that my comments to them in context and with a purpose behind them was somehow big-noting myself or promoting myself. 

I am quite content with who I am.  Your attempt to belittle me is creepy.  You are what is known as a stalker - by your conduct.  I know you don't have the capacity to actually understand that. And there is no doubt you can rationalize all your creepiness.  I hope one day you will wake up and realize how pathetic your remarks are. But honestly I doubt it.  

Once a creepy old man, always a creepy old man.  Once a stalker and a bully, always one.  If perhaps you could actually address any of my questions - pertaining to your nonsense about "lifting verses, then perhaps we could have a dialogue. But not you. Distract and attack is your motto and rather than actually addressing my point - you first suggest I don't have an answer and then bring up what you perceive is a winner.  But one thing is certain. You don't address the question - because you can't.  And you know it. 

I could provide a fuller answer - but there is no need - since you won't read it anyway.  If something gets to hard which for you invariably it is - you try to divert attention.  Pretty good example of atheistic tactics really.  Since they don't have any substantial reasons for their stupidity - the distract and attack. 

#262
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Do you ACTUALLY think that this is going to goad me into responding and answering your question? 

I make that four times you have ignored a simply question concerning a verse that you chose to somehow prove a point. 
Which it didn't and doesn't.

Let's give this one last try:

So tell us;  what to your mind  does the verse that you have used actually mean if it is not to be taken literal, Reverend Munchausen?

"a great and wonderous sign appeared in Heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head". Revelation 12:1

#263
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



.
Miss Tradesecret, as a woman shown herewith: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy that goes directly against Jesus’ words in 1 Timothy 2:12 whereas she is not to teach and in being SILENT towards men,

YOUR EVER SO WEAK POST #256 IN TRYING TO GET OUT OF YOUR EMBARRASSMENT OF USING REVELATION 12!!!: "Yes so what?  My point is Brother D Thomas has heard it from Jesus that EVERY WORD in the bible is literal and that we are not supposed to question anything. Hence - whatever is said - whether or not I think it is a vision or narrative or history is irrelevant."

YES, it is LITERALLY a VISION that John spoke about in Revelation 12, get it for Christ's sake?!!!  Now, once again, wipe the egg from our face!

Just accept the FACT that you tried in vain to come up with a woman in heaven to support the FACT that your Bible ignorance does not know that women will NOT be going to heaven. As shown, this includes YOU as a 2nd class woman as shown in your Profile Page link above, and before you comically became an "unknown!" which Jesus and I will address at your continued embarrassing expense!  LOL

Dear, do you teach that women will NOT be going to heaven to your equally Bible inept "hooked" congregation? 


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT IS GRASPING FOR STRAWS TO "TRY" AND PROVE THEIR UNGODLY POINT WILL BE ...?


.


#264
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret


.
Miss Tradesecret, as a woman shown herewith: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy that goes directly against Jesus’ words in 1 Timothy 2:12 ,whereas she is not to teach and in being SILENT towards men!

YOUR UNGODLY MUMBO JUMBO QUOTE IN POST #257 IN TRYNG TO TAKE AWAY AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL DEATH AS THE BIBLE SO STATES IN MATTHEW 15:4 TO OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS: “Nevertheless you also ignore what I present to my congregation - which is that covenantal death is not to be automatically equated with a physical death.”

“For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.” (Matthew 15:4)

The passage above is relating to these passages herewith: 

1. “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:17)

2. "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)

How can your ungodly and comical “covenantal death” proposition be relative to “his blood shall be upon him” at the time in the Leviticus 20:9 passage above?  What is your latest grasping for straws "spin" upon this topic in changing Jesus exact words within the scriptures? BEGIN:


The actual deaths in the passages shown above, is equal to the actual physical death of a 2nd class women in the following passage with absolutely NO “covenantal death scenario” being possible that you comically try and hang your hat upon: "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:  Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deut. 22:20-21). Get it Bible fool?

You said you don’t disagree with God, nor do you disagree with Jesus who is God, therefore as explicitly shown above, you have to discard your Devil Speak relative to your ungodly notions of "covenantal deaths" verse Jesus' "actual physical deaths" scenarios as shown in Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures, get it Bible doofus!   


NEXT DUMBFOUNDED OF THE BIBLE 2ND CLASS PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET WILL BE …?


.
#265
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7



MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2022, UPDATE ON MISS TRADESECRETS EXCUSES TO RUN AWAY FROM LOGICAL BIBLICAL QUESTIONS AND AXIOMS IN ADDING EXCUSES #9 AND #10 SHOWN BELOW IN THIS EVER GROWING LIST:


MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #1: Tradesecret will now call you a “bully,” for making them the Bible fool, or for asking questions that she could not answer, even though the questions asked were logically valid!

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #2: Tradesecret will now accuse you of “stalking” her if you repeat more than once why Tradesecret hasn’t addressed your questions in the first place! 

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #3: Tradesecret will now use the ruse of “attacking them personally,” by name calling, which has nothing to do with the questions asked to her. Where the irony is “she performs this act as well. Can Tradesecret spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?  Sure she can.

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #4: Tradesecret will just go “SILENT” to your questions in the hopes that you will forget about the fact that you presented them to her in the first place!  

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #5:  Tradesecret will give you “cutesy” excuses and images to try and take your mind off of the FACT that they are running away again from your valid axiomatic biblical questions! Child-like, but what did we expect. :(

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #6: Now if you want to make Tradesecret the continued Bible fool, they “may” answer you if your question or statement to them is, properly put to her! LOL!

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #7:  She will tell you that you are not interpreting the scripture correctly, even though it is LITERAL in nature. She disagrees with the literal presentation of any passage or narrative that embarrasses her, then she will come up with another ungodly "convenient interpretation" of said verse to make you wrong!  

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #8:  She will tell you that what you have found regarding her ungodly and despicable nature is because you have "hacked" into her PD account, and changed her posts to disgusting posts to further embarrass her!  Priceless.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #9: She will divert the attention away from her in failing to prove her point by calling you a “creepy old man.”

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #10”:  She will use the term that you “Distract and Attack” to save her from further embarrassment to her outright Bible stupidity!


Jesus and I will obviously be adding more of Miss Tradesecret's EXCUSES to run away from biblical axioms in the future, stay tuned!


NEXT BIBLE PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN THAT HAS EXCUSES TO RUN AWAY FROM BIBLICAL AXIOMS LIKE MISS TRADESECRETS WILL BE ...?


.


#266
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Do you ACTUALLY think that this is going to goad me into responding and answering your question? 

I make that four times you have ignored a simply question concerning a verse that you chose to somehow prove a point. 
Which it didn't and doesn't.

Let's give this one last try:

So tell us;  what to your mind  does the verse that you have used actually mean if it is not to be taken literal, Reverend Munchausen?

"a great and wonderous sign appeared in Heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head". Revelation 12:1
I'm trying to figure out which is more amusing. The fact that you think such goading is going to make me respond to your question or the fact that once again you attempt to pretend that I did not explain to dear Brother?   

My point was not the substance of the verse itself - it was the manner in which Brother refuses to acknowledge his hypocrisy in relation to how he interprets the bible.  The Brother has on many occasions belittled others for not taking verses which are clearly poetry or symbolic as literal. Indeed Brother emphatically has informed us in prayer with Jesus that EVERY WORD of the bible is to be taken literally.    

So I produced a verse - and let it sit there.  If taken literally (in the manner that the Brother expects others to take poetry and parables and visions literally) it is clearly a woman in heaven. It PROVES the Brother foolish in anyone's language.  

Yet what do you do? Rather than do what people seeking truth do - and seeing my point - you want to turn it into something else. LOL @ your folly. 

Now the Brother is saying it is "literally a vision".  LOL! Whatever does that mean?  Does the literal vision exist in heaven in anyone's mind?  LOL! I am sure he has no clue what he is saying.  Just like you don't. 

NB: the meaning of the verse in this context is relevant only in relation to the interpretational methodology of the Brother.   He says every word is literal. If he is correct about literal meanings - then he is incorrect about there being no females in heaven.  He can't have it both ways.  Oh I am sure he will try and put a spin on it. He always does. But anyone else - if they could be bothered reading this topic will make up their own minds.  

#267
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Miss Tradesecret, as a woman shown herewith: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy that goes directly against Jesus’ words in 1 Timothy 2:12 whereas she is not to teach and in being SILENT towards men,

YOUR EVER SO WEAK POST #256 IN TRYING TO GET OUT OF YOUR EMBARRASSMENT OF USING REVELATION 12!!!: "Yes so what?  My point is Brother D Thomas has heard it from Jesus that EVERY WORD in the bible is literal and that we are not supposed to question anything. Hence - whatever is said - whether or not I think it is a vision or narrative or history is irrelevant."

YES, it is LITERALLY a VISION that John spoke about in Revelation 12, get it for Christ's sake?!!!  Now, once again, wipe the egg from our face!

Just accept the FACT that you tried in vain to come up with a woman in heaven to support the FACT that your Bible ignorance does not know that women will NOT be going to heaven. As shown, this includes YOU as a 2nd class woman as shown in your Profile Page link above, and before you comically became an "unknown!" which Jesus and I will address at your continued embarrassing expense!  LOL

Dear, do you teach that women will NOT be going to heaven to your equally Bible inept "hooked" congregation? 


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT IS GRASPING FOR STRAWS TO "TRY" AND PROVE THEIR UNGODLY POINT WILL BE ...?


I like to quote you in full. That lets people see how lovely you are and kind and TOLERANT. 

literally a vision.  ???? I love that Brother.  Whatever does that mean? Let's apply it to "literally a parable".  If a parable talks of killing people - does that make the person telling the parable a murderer? Literally a vision? Does that mean the person seeing the vision - sees what is happening in heaven?  LOL! You are so far out of your depth in this topic.  But that is ok. At least you and I get to talk about the bible.  It would be worse for you if you suddenly left the site and stopped reading the bible. 

BTW - there is no such thing as a second class woman.  In fact I am not even sure what that is.  I am sure you are not suggesting that trans people who identify as females are second class are you?  That would be quite a thing for someone who is an atheist pretending to mock Christians.  Imagine that. The tolerant atheist who dislikes the intolerant Christian - mocking those with transgender identifiers. 

You should be ashamed of yourself. Yet given you are an atheist, I think you are being entirely consistent with your amoral nature.  I don't expect you to be ashamed. In fact I doubt you would even know what that word means and why you ought to feel that way. 

I do like to talking to you - but sometimes - it is like trying to talk to a child. A tiny little toddler.  If only you would see how many feet you continue to thrust into your own mouth with the silliness you express.  

I'll wait here for you next attempt to say something intelligible.  Waiting. 
#268
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Miss Tradesecret, as a woman shown herewith: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy that goes directly against Jesus’ words in 1 Timothy 2:12 ,whereas she is not to teach and in being SILENT towards men!
YOUR UNGODLY MUMBO JUMBO QUOTE IN POST #257 IN TRYNG TO TAKE AWAY AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL DEATH AS THE BIBLE SO STATES IN MATTHEW 15:4 TO OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS: “Nevertheless you also ignore what I present to my congregation - which is that covenantal death is not to be automatically equated with a physical death.”

“For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.” (Matthew 15:4)

The passage above is relating to these passages herewith: 

1. “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:17)

2. "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)

How can your ungodly and comical “covenantal death” proposition be relative to “his blood shall be upon him” at the time in the Leviticus 20:9 passage above?  What is your latest grasping for straws "spin" upon this topic in changing Jesus exact words within the scriptures? BEGIN:


The actual deaths in the passages shown above, is equal to the actual physical death of a 2nd class women in the following passage with absolutely NO “covenantal death scenario” being possible that you comically try and hang your hat upon: "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:  Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deut. 22:20-21). Get it Bible fool?

You said you don’t disagree with God, nor do you disagree with Jesus who is God, therefore as explicitly shown above, you have to discard your Devil Speak relative to your ungodly notions of "covenantal deaths" verse Jesus' "actual physical deaths" scenarios as shown in Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures, get it Bible doofus!   


NEXT DUMBFOUNDED OF THE BIBLE 2ND CLASS PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET WILL BE …?


I love it how you are always trying to excuse me.  Are you really that scared of discussing these matters with me - that you hope I will leave and run away.  Yet after all of your attempts to suggest I run away - here I am - still waiting for you to have even ONE half decent discussion properly.  

Again - I am not a female. I identify as male.  Although in my latest profile I have taken male out. I might put it in again one day. It is my profile and I don't have to answer to you for anything I put in there.  Having looked at your profile, it seems to me that out of you and me - you are the biggest fake here. A profile that is clearly a joke. Or a lie in any  one's language. 

Again you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between literal language and genre.  That's ok but you do need to go and learn the difference.  Literally an idiom.   Go and ask Jesus. He will tell you that "must surely die" in Hebrew is an idiom. Translated literally from the Hebrew it is "dying you shall die".   Notice the two uses of die.  This is one of the text markers that indicate - stop and think about this. Why is this word used twice in two parts of the language in the same context but differently.  In the book of Revelation - you rightly disagreed with your literalistic hermeneutic based on the fact the marker in the text indicated it was a vision.  Do the same here dear Brother.  It will assist in your understanding.  In fact go to your concordance. Look up every time must surely die is used.  And if you have the skills - look up every verse that this time of language is used - when the one word is used twice within a very short phrase in different ways. If you take the time to do this - then you might learn what the marker in the text is referring to.  Or perhaps you could just go to a Hebrew Language commentary, they are often very helpful.  Text indicators are helpful especially when you don't know the language. 

"His blood shall be upon him".  Is this a literal phrase or something else? Will the blood literally be on that person? Or is it talking figuratively? Be careful how you answer. You would not want to be accused of not being literal.   Personally, I am of the view that it is figurative not literal.  It is talking about guilt, is it not? Shame even.  

Hence my usage of covenantal death here is VERY applicable.  David committed adultery and murder. Nathan the Prophet did not request physical death for David. the nation did not sentence him to physical death-  but he died covenantly - and was raised to life after he repented. Repentance brings new life. 

Spin things however you like - but it is pointless.  Until you can show us why something need to be taken literally and why others need to be visions or symbolic - then really you have just walked your self out of the discussion. 

Do you deny that the family unit is valuable? Are you ever going to answer that question? 




#269
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Do you ACTUALLY think that this is going to goad me into responding and answering your question? 

I make that four times you have ignored a simply question concerning a verse that you chose to somehow prove a point. 
Which it didn't and doesn't.

Let's give this one last try:

So tell us;  what to your mind  does the verse that you have used actually mean if it is not to be taken literal, Reverend Munchausen?

"a great and wonderous sign appeared in Heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head". Revelation 12:1
I'm trying to figure out which is more amusing. 

So that's a NO, then. You cannot explain your own bullshite.

Ok . Off you trot.

#270
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So that's a NO, then. You cannot explain your own bullshite.

Ok . Off you trot.
I did explain my position. 


Go back and read it again. Or for the first time perhaps.  LOL!