Is Josephus a real historical figure?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 89
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
The Reverend gave reasons for the thread on Josephus following the case for the Historical Jesus by Shila.

Reverend wrote: You would hardly expect anything else though would you?  Christians rely upon the bible - but since some people without a clue or an education suggest the bible is not a valid source to rely upon will only accept other sources - the go to case is going to be Josephus.  There are a few others but too many - since there are not too many sources for anything back then for anybody.    You would have to be a fool not to think that Christians wouldn't rely upon Josephus.
Nope. What the Reverend is doing in that post in all his perceived wisdom -  is simply saying that Christians will point to Josephus as support for their opinion that the bible is valid. And I agreed. Why ever wouldn't they?  But the fact is, it appears to be that the Reverend  is the only one here that is dismissing Josephus outright because S/he says:

Treadsecret wrote: "we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure.  He's probably a legend someone dreamed up.  We can probably dismiss most of his work as made up. #1

I had to remind the cretinous clown that if he is talking about discarding and dismissing the ancient works of Josephus in its entirety then the same can be said for all ancient works including the bible. Here>>> #8
  For all of his/her alleged high education, the Reverend produces some of the weakest if not childish arguments that go nowhere in supporting his bible, his religion, his god or his faith.

You raise a strong  argument against the Reverend. Reverend is someone who likes it both ways apparently  from your examples.
Well, the " likes it both ways" can be misconstrued in this instance.

But as far as them being "my examples" I have to point out that those cretinous examples are all the Reverends words.
My point is the Reverend is the only one here that suggests that we should dismiss this ancient work of Josephus as "made up" and dreamed up" and "myth" although he knows full well that Christians will and do point to Josephus as evidence of the bible being valid.  Foot in his pie hole comes to mind.
He's not very bright is he, Shila.


Topic's author
#32
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Brother, how are you? 

It's nice to see you can still use a computer.   

Oh by the way - I am not a woman.  Secondly, if I were, which I am not, it would not prevent me from putting my views down on this site. 

Despite your silliness, and oh yes, don't forget the humour, you are wrong.  The Bible says woman can speak in church.  They can do all sorts of things - in fact pretty much anything a man can do. There are two exceptions.  They cannot be an elder on a ruling church body. And secondly, they shall not teach men in a public worship service from the bible. 

Of course - everything else is up for grabs.   You don't seem to understand the cultural aspects of what Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians. If you did, then you would realise that the places  where people were meeting were primarily synagogues.   And if you have ever been to a synagogue, you might have noticed something very similar to what happens in a mosque.   the Men are separated from the woman and the children.  and in the Jewish synagogue - gentile men were excluded from the section where the men would meet.  Some of these synagogues were double story places - men at the bottom with the teacher. Woman and children and gentiles were at the top.  You can google pictures of these synagogues if you really cared. 

Now obviously - children can be noisy and if anyone upstairs was listening to the teacher down stairs there would at times be difficulty hearing what was said. This verse you pull out and wave around has a context.  And the context is church order and discipline. You will find that other things mentioned in this context include prophecy speaking in tongue, gifts of the Spirit.  Paul was concerned that a public worship service would be orderly not a public chaotic scene. So Paul gave the church at Corinth strict instructions about who could speak and when.  Don't do anything that is going to disrupt the service.   And that includes the idea that Paul said when he said woman should not speak but should go home and ask their own husband.  Every time a woman shouted down to her husband - "what he saying? What does he mean?" It disrupted the service.  

Hence, the primary rule is "don't interrupt the service". and whether this is speaking in tongues, prophesying, singing, or shouting down to ask your husband what the speaker is saying, don't do it.   Do all things in order.  Since God is not a God of chaos.  

Now I know that you will simply ignore this and just go on with the drivel that you usually do. But at least now you have been told.  And you can do whatever it is you do with knowledge that you acquire. 

but have a good day. 
Topic's author
#33
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Now you have confused me. Are you a man? No seriously. Are you a man? And he I am thinking you were a duck.  

If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and thinks like a duck, then well logic says - it must be a duck. 


I reckon you are duck, you old cheeky thing you. Don't be confusing us again.  You old thing you. 


#34
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
Now I  am starting to think ive been translating scriptures the wrong way. 

When i try " translating " shlt from the bible,  i very rarely get my cock and balls out. 
Probably only like twice i have. 
 On this site anyways. 

One time was when i first encountered the ( UP THERE BALDY AND THE 40 BEARS ) Script.  

Ive rubbed me knob all over the bible. 
Nothing.  

Im gessing You need like a 10 inch cock to be a biblical scholar. 
  
ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN.  
Every one is brilliant at translating scriptures. 

With 1.5 billion Christians in the

☆⊙°••☆⊙°•☆⊙°•☆⊙°•☆⊙°•         TOP 100 of ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL TIME.   ☆⊙°•¤☆⊙°¤¤☆⊙°••¤☆⊙°•¤⊙°°•¤☆⊙°°¤
At deciphering scriptures. 

There fucking has to be. 

I leave you with a sentence / statment you'll never see typed in a religious forum .
Ok ya ready? 


I DONT THINK I AM VERY GOOD AT TRANSLATING SCRIPTURES. 
I'M A LITTLE BELOW AVERAGE.   
 



#35
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
Please don't ask me how i know. 
That would ruin it 
I couldn't think that i would  know that. 

Good game 
Good game.  
#36
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I DONT THINK I AM VERY GOOD AT TRANSLATING SCRIPTURES. 

Which still leaves you high above all theist here, Deb and even higher than the highly educated Reverend Tradesecret.. Take a bow. "good game , good game".

See if you can translate these snide slights against you, Deb. 

I'll leave you to read for yourself his patronising tones towards you. HERE>>  "cute and backward"


Topic's author
#37
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
@Deb-8-a-bull
I DONT THINK I AM VERY GOOD AT TRANSLATING SCRIPTURES. 

Which still leaves you high above all theist here, Deb and even higher than the highly educated Reverend Tradesecret.. Take a bow. "good game , good game".

See if you can translate these snide slights against you, Deb. 

I'll leave you to read for yourself his patronising tones towards you. HERE>>  "cute and backward"

Sorry Tradesecret, no stalking in that at all.  Stop it. Stop it Stop it. Stephen is just trying to protect that young man's honour from the horrible and evil trade secret.  Oh ok then.   

deb - you must be happy then, with Stephen acting now as your knight in shining armour.  I think it suits him very well. And about time too I would say- since he has never ever said anything mean and nasty to you - or indeed to anyone.   But take heart - he has his trusty sword in his hand - ready to poke and prod just where he desires in his endeavours to protect poor little you.    ( I think that is a sword - but hey I could be wrong) 
#38
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen acting now as your knight in shining armour. 

As usual you have the wrong end of the stick, Reverend "Tradey".

 It is Deb that  is your "knight in shining armour". He is saying the forum should defend you. Here>   https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8091-the-case-for-the-historical-jesus?page=5&post_number=122

That was until I reminded him what a patronising, intolerant toe rag you had been to him in the  past. Here>>  "cute and backward"

 You really are a thicko..... all of the time.

#39
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
-->
@Stephen
Correct . 

You are a good translator of my gibberish nonsense. 
It isn't easy for me pretending i am dumb butttttt. Teaching one to translate nonsense comes at a price. 
You are welcome Step Hen
 
Im just going to hold back on that post from yesterday. 
After watching a little more interactions,    my moral glands went down.  






#40
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tradesecret
--> @BrotherD.Thomas
Now you have confused me. Are you a man? No seriously. Are you a man? And he I am thinking you were a duck.  

If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and thinks like a duck, then well logic says - it must be a duck. 


I reckon you are duck, you old cheeky thing you. Don't be confusing us again.  You old thing you. 
Looks like your duck insults are working. BrotherD hasn’t uttered a quack since.

#41
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Im just going to hold back on that post from yesterday. 
After watching a little more interactions,    my moral glands went down.  


Well Deb, your moral glands couldn't have sunk down anywhere near as low that these patronising unnecessary and uncalled for slights directed towards you from non-other than a man of god too.

"Cute and backward"

#42
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Deb-8-a-bull
Im just going to hold back on that post from yesterday. 
After watching a little more interactions,    my moral glands went down.  


Well Deb, your moral glands couldn't have sunk down anywhere near as low that these patronising unnecessary and uncalled for slights directed towards you from non-other than a man of god too.

"Cute and backward"
Sounds like a public confession from the Reverend. There certainly were low moments.
#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
--> @Deb-8-a-bull
Im just going to hold back on that post from yesterday. 
After watching a little more interactions,    my moral glands went down.  


Well Deb, your moral glands couldn't have sunk down anywhere near as low than these patronising unnecessary and uncalled for slights directed towards you from non-other than a man of god too.

"Cute and backward"
Sounds like a public confession from the Reverend.

Yep, another one. He can't help himself.  But then cries about " bullying " when his own backstory is brought to the fore.

#44
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila
--> @Deb-8-a-bull
Im just going to hold back on that post from yesterday. 
After watching a little more interactions,    my moral glands went down.  


Well Deb, your moral glands couldn't have sunk down anywhere near as low than these patronising unnecessary and uncalled for slights directed towards you from non-other than a man of god too.

"Cute and backward"
Sounds like a public confession from the Reverend. 

Yep, another one. He can't help himself.  But then cries about " bullying " when his own backstory is brought to the fore.
How do you explain it was God that moved the Reverend to become a believer? What valued did God see in the Reverend now that we have the Reverend’s confession.

#45
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
How do you explain it was God that moved the Reverend to become a believer?

It not for me to explain, is it? That is another one for the Reverend to lie about, He simply tells, us "god chose" him.. God is a bad judge of character if you ask me.



What valued did God see in the Reverend now that we have the Reverend’s confession.

The Reverend has made many of these "confessions". I have no idea why he bothered unless it was to garner sympathy whenever he felt "attacked " and "bullied".

"value"?  Pathetic really. Still, that is his own business. It doesn't interest me; I am not so easily impressed.
#46
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila
How do you explain it was God that moved the Reverend to become a believer?

It not for me to explain, is it? That is another one for the Reverend to lie about, He simply tells, us "god chose" him.. God is a bad judge of character if you ask me.



What valued did God see in the Reverend now that we have the Reverend’s confession.

The Reverend has made many of these "confessions". I have no idea why he bothered unless it was to garner sympathy whenever he felt "attacked " and "bullied".

"value"?  Pathetic really. Still, that is his own business. It doesn't interest me; I am not so easily impressed.

Can you imagine what the Reverend was before God moved him?

#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
--> @Shila
How do you explain it was God that moved the Reverend to become a believer?

It not for me to explain, is it? That is another one for the Reverend to lie about, He simply tells, us "god chose" him.. God is a bad judge of character if you ask me.



What valued did God see in the Reverend now that we have the Reverend’s confession.

The Reverend has made many of these "confessions". I have no idea why he bothered unless it was to garner sympathy whenever he felt "attacked " and "bullied".

"value"?  Pathetic really. Still, that is his own business. It doesn't interest me; I am not so easily impressed.

Can you imagine what the Reverend was before God moved him?

I think you mean before he says  "god moved him".

I don't have to imagine anything at all. He has spilled his life story all over the WWW. From childhood to whatever he claims to be now.

I notice he's contributed very little to his own thread. This will be another topic he will want to disappear and wish he hadn't stated.

Topic's author
#48
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I notice he's contributed very little to his own thread. This will be another topic he will want to disappear and wish he hadn't stated.
Well there you go again, exposing your cleverness to the entire forum.   Unlike you - some of us actually have real reasons for starting threads and unlike you some of us know when the reason has sufficiently been addressed. 

Here the purpose was not ton demonstrate that Josephus was not a real person but to demonstrate that the lack of original data does not prove the person existed or not.   

This was covered very early.   The underlying purpose was for then to see whether people on this site were able to make the logical step from the lack of source documents for Josephus to Jesus.   Some did and some didn't.  

Once that purpose and the underlying purpose was achieved, I had no further reason to contribute further - save and except when stalkers come on and pretend that they are so clever.  Still have a good day. And thanks for playing. 
#49
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Reinterpreting scripture is some peoples stop-gap.

Others bake cakes or do yoga.

Or bake cakes and do yoga.

I do various stuff and eat cakes.

And from time to time.

I interrupt interpretation proceedings.

As you do.

And then off to make a cup of tea.

What's your tipple?
#50
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I notice he's contributed very little to his own thread. This will be another topic he will want to disappear and wish he hadn't started.
  Unlike you - some of us actually have real reasons for starting threads and unlike you some of us know when the reason has sufficiently been addressed. 

Ok and what are your own conclusions after the asking and then answering your own premise?



Here the purpose was not ton demonstrate that Josephus was not a real person but to demonstrate that the lack of original data does not prove the person existed or not.

But haven't you concluded that the "data" is lacking :  Do you not state in your own Op that:

Tradsecret wrote:

Given that the oldest record of any alleged work of Josephus is not found until the 4th century and then only in portion - we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure.  He's probably a legend someone dreamed up. #1
And don't you press home you conclusion in the same op by saying that:

 we can probably dismiss most of his work as made up.  #1
And then ask:

What do you reckon and what evidence would you give to refute the fact that he is just a myth?  #1

But you had already dismissed the "evidence" hadn't you? Here>>

Since he apparently is the main source for many ancient legends we can probably dismiss most of his work as made up.  #1



This was covered very early.

 Then you haven't been keeping up with your own thread, have you?

No one but yourself has dismissed the Josephus as being an historical figure.


  The underlying purpose was for then to see whether people on this site were able to make the logical step from the lack of source documents for Josephus to Jesus.   Some did and some didn't.  

And now you are attempting to move the goal posts. You keep forgetting the fact that if, as YOU have done, dismissed Josephus as ever existing going by what you call a " only a portion" of evidence available then it would follow that there is no link to the existence of Jesus. In other words, when you dismissed Josephus and his entire works as existing you also dismissed the existence of Jesus too.
When you reduced Josephus as "myth and legend" you reduced Jesus to "myth and legend" too.  When you dismissed ancient works, you dismissed all ancient works.
As I first pointed out HERE>>#8 when I wrote: 
Stephe wrote: But if we are talking about discarding and dismissing the works of Josephus in its entirety then the same can be said for all ancient works including the bible.#8

You are just far too thick to realise your great giant balls up.


  The underlying purpose was for then to see whether people on this site were able to make the logical step from the lack of source documents for Josephus to Jesus.
Some did and some didn't.  

Nope.  No one here as done that.

Maybe you can start a new thread showing us any logical steps that you have taken to show that there may be a link from Josephus the myth and legend to Jesus the myth and legend.😊

You shot yourself in the foot with this thread Reverend.

Off you go now, thicky.








Topic's author
#51
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
wow - is that really the best you can do?

You do realise that the OP was just that? the Op.

Of course the data is not there yet. It was to come after that.

And it did. 

I don't have to draw conclusions for you - you're a big boy. Well that is what you want us to think. Oh wait you don't care what we think. So why bother drawing any conclusions for you?

As I said - the only reason to come back now is to respond to so called clever stalkers.  Again you just prove my case. So predictable. Good night old chap. thanks for playing, 
#52
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

I notice he's contributed very little to his own thread. This will be another topic he will want to disappear and wish he hadn't started.
  Unlike you - some of us actually have real reasons for starting threads and unlike you some of us know when the reason has sufficiently been addressed. 

Ok and what are your own conclusions after the asking and then answering your own premise?



Here the purpose was not ton demonstrate that Josephus was not a real person but to demonstrate that the lack of original data does not prove the person existed or not.

But haven't you concluded that the "data" is lacking :  Do you not state in your own Op that:

Tradsecret wrote:

Given that the oldest record of any alleged work of Josephus is not found until the 4th century and then only in portion - we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure.  He's probably a legend someone dreamed up. #1
And don't you press home you conclusion in the same op by saying that:

 we can probably dismiss most of his work as made up.  #1
And then ask:

What do you reckon and what evidence would you give to refute the fact that he is just a myth?  #1

But you had already dismissed the "evidence" hadn't you? Here>>

Since he apparently is the main source for many ancient legends we can probably dismiss most of his work as made up.  #1



This was covered very early.

 Then you haven't been keeping up with your own thread, have you?

No one but yourself has dismissed the Josephus as being an historical figure.


  The underlying purpose was for then to see whether people on this site were able to make the logical step from the lack of source documents for Josephus to Jesus.   Some did and some didn't.  

And now you are attempting to move the goal posts. You keep forgetting the fact that if, as YOU have done, dismissed Josephus as ever existing going by what you call a " only a portion" of evidence available then it would follow that there is no link to the existence of Jesus. In other words, when you dismissed Josephus and his entire works as existing you also dismissed the existence of Jesus too.
When you reduced Josephus as "myth and legend" you reduced Jesus to "myth and legend" too.  When you dismissed ancient works, you dismissed all ancient works.
As I first pointed out HERE>>#8 when I wrote: 
Stephe wrote: But if we are talking about discarding and dismissing the works of Josephus in its entirety then the same can be said for all ancient works including the bible.#8

You are just far too thick to realise your great giant balls up.


  The underlying purpose was for then to see whether people on this site were able to make the logical step from the lack of source documents for Josephus to Jesus.
Some did and some didn't.  

Nope.  No one here as done that.

Maybe you can start a new thread showing us any logical steps that you have taken to show that there may be a link from Josephus the myth and legend to Jesus the myth and legend.😊

You shot yourself in the foot with this thread Reverend.


is that really the best you can do?
That is all I needed to do.
Off you go now, thicky.
#53
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, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!”


Addressing your feeble post #32,

YOUR QUOTE IN HIDING YOUR FEMALE GENDER, AKA, WOMAN STATUS: "Oh by the way - I am not a woman. Secondly, if I were, which I am not, it would not prevent me from putting my views down on this site". 

Yeah, right, but this link shows you to be a woman: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEB0WX8  Then you comically and embarrassingly changed your female gender to "other" in your current biography link: https://www.debateart.com/profiles/Tradesecret  Sorry dear, the term "other" doesn't count for obvious reasons, duh, whereas you being a woman in the first link will LOGICALLY prevail at your continued expense within this forum.  In you denying your woman status as explicitly shown, is like you denying your admittance of being a SEXUAL DEVIANT with your family members as shown in this unchristian like link:  https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEFT0NW

Therefore, you cannot continue to “try” and LIE about your godly gender as a woman, understood dear?  Yeah, you embarrassingly understand.



YOUR EXPLICIT QUOTE: “The Bible says woman can speak in church”

Cite the EXACT passages that support your alleged premise. WAITING!


As if I and the membership doesn’t see you RUNNING AWAY from my post #22 to you shown in the link below!  SCARED to face reality in you going directly against the word of Jesus as God in posting as a woman, whereas, YOU as a woman, are not permitted to teach or to exercise the authority over a man; rather, you are to STFU!



NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE RUNAWAY LIKE MISS TRADESECRET WILL BE …?


.

#54
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, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!”

Addessing another one of your feeble child like posts #33

YOUR CHILD-LIKE BANTER TO TRY AND USE ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR DIVERSION TACTICS TO RUN AWAY FROM YOUR WOMANLY STATUS:  “Now you have confused me. Are you a man? No seriously. Are you a man? And he I am thinking you were a duck.  If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and thinks like a duck, then well logic says - it must be a duck. I reckon you are duck, you old cheeky thing you. Don't be confusing us again.  You old thing you." 

Look at the very low level you have to take yourself in front of the membership to try and use another one of your smoke screens to take the talk away from you being shown to be a woman, barring the blatant fact of you being an admitted SEXUAL DEVIANT with family members, as shown in my revealing post #53! How unchristian like can you get?!  Despicable!

Do you actually think I like my position of easily owning you and your Christianity in front of the membership by continually Bible Slapping you Silly®️? NO, I do not!  But, it just comes with the territory of you being so outright Bible stupid, of which I am truly sorry for you dear.  :(


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT WANTS TO DIG ANOTHER HOLE FOR THEMSELVES, AND ME FILLING IT IN WITH THEM IN IT, WILL BE …?


.
#55
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Yeah, right, but this link shows you to be a woman: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEB0WX8  Then you comically and embarrassingly changed your female gender to "other" in your current biography link: https://www.debateart.com/profiles/Tradesecret  Sorry dear, the term "other" doesn't count for obvious reasons, duh, whereas you being a woman in the first link will LOGICALLY prevail at your continued expense within this forum.  In you denying your woman status as explicitly shown, is like you denying your admittance of being a SEXUAL DEVIANT with your family members as shown in this unchristian like link:  https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEFT0NW
Good informative post. and well worth the thumbs up.
 Interesting is it not that in one of those links that the Reverend "chosen by god himself " informs us that he is from New Zealand and his native language is Greek.  He just cannot help himself can he, Brother D.  Yet the likes of bone head Shila hangs on his/her every word and even supports his lies.

Have a look and follow this latest clanger from the Reverend , Brother D. #100

 
Topic's author
#56
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Was that a quack I heard? 

Quack quack. 


Topic's author
#57
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
Was that a quack I heard? 

Quack quack. 


Topic's author
#58
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR EXPLICIT QUOTE: “The Bible says woman can speak in church”

Cite the EXACT passages that support your alleged premise. WAITING!


7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
 The Holy Bible: New International Version—Anglicised (1984), electronic edition. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984), 1 Co 12:7–11.


The implication of this passage is for all persons in the church, old and young, Jew and Gentile, clergy and non-clergy, male or female. EVERY ONE is given different gifts for the common good.   

5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.
 The Holy Bible: New International Version—Anglicised (1984), electronic edition. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984), 1 Co 14:5.

Paul is making the point that he would like EVERY ONE to speak in tongues in church.  EVERY ONE includes young and old, Jews and Gentiles, clergy and non-clergy, males and females.  EVERYONE who belongs to the church should be able to speak. 


26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.
 The Holy Bible: New International Version—Anglicised (1984), electronic edition. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984), 1 Co 14:26.

Here is an explicit passage that tells us that when the church folk come together EVERYONE has a hymn or a word of instruction, a revelation etc.  So long as everything is done in order - then age or youth, clergy or non clergy, Jew or Gentile, male or female - all are allowed to speak in church. 


Topic's author
#59
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
That is all I needed to do.
Or perhaps that is all you were able to do!

Thanks for playing. 
#60
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, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!”


Dear Miss Tradesecret, I am sorry that you evaded my post #53 in addressing the FACT that you are a woman, whereas you say you are not! Is there a logical reason on your behalf of RUNNING AWAY from the fact that your biography that I have shown explicitly says you are a woman, and the ramifications of this FACT within this Religion Forum?  


***********  Listen, to make it easier for you to respond to my post #53, we can leave out, at this time, the despicable and ungodly FACT that you admit, as I have shown, in you being a SEXUAL DEVIANT WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS, and you still want to be called a Christian, NOT!!!!!!!!  ***********


Here, let me repost my post #53 to you again for your convenance for you to address this time in front of the membership where I show you to be a woman, and where you deny that you are not a woman:

Addressing your feeble post #32,

YOUR QUOTE IN HIDING YOUR FEMALE GENDER, AKA, WOMAN STATUS: "Oh by the way - I am not a woman. Secondly, if I were, which I am not, it would not prevent me from putting my views down on this site". 

Yeah, right, but this link shows you to be a woman: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEB0WX8  Then you comically and embarrassingly changed your female gender to "other" in your current biography link: https://www.debateart.com/profiles/Tradesecret  Sorry dear, the term "other" doesn't count for obvious reasons, duh, whereas you being a woman in the first link will LOGICALLY prevail at your continued expense within this forum.  In you denying your woman status as explicitly shown, is like you denying your admittance of being a SEXUAL DEVIANT with your family members as shown in this unchristian like link:  https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEFT0NW

Therefore, you cannot continue to “try” and LIE about your godly gender as a woman, understood dear?  Yeah, you embarrassingly understand.



NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE "MISS TRADESECRET" THAT HAS TO "TRY" AND RUN AWAY FROM THE FACT OF HER SHOWING HERSELF IN BEING A WOMAN, AND THEN DENIES THIS FACT, WILL BE ...? 


.