Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Your Help Refuting a Blog

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 12
 [ 222 posts ] 
Your Help Refuting a Blog
Author Message
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Dragan Glas wrote:

thenexttodie, you're obviously unable to admit that you're wrong, hence you're resorting to using :lol: in lieu of a proper answer.



I just think it's funny you would use the old "Everyone agrees with me, so I must be right." argument.

One thing I'm trying to explain to you is that the Gentiles were already clean before the time of Peter's vision. Does every Bible commentary disagree with me on that?
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:13 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:

thenexttodie, you're obviously unable to admit that you're wrong, hence you're resorting to using :lol: in lieu of a proper answer.



I just think it's funny you would use the old "Everyone agrees with me, so I must be right." argument.

One thing I'm trying to explain to you is that the Gentiles were already clean before the time of Peter's vision. Does every Bible commentary disagree with me on that?

You again try to step around the fact of what the vision meant. And your attempt to appear right by finding just one Commentary that doesn't disagree with you is a logical fallacy.

According to Jewish beliefs, Gentiles were not "clean".

The point was that Peter - like other Jews - believed that it was not "kosher" to associate with Gentiles. The vision was showing Peter that, because these particular Gentiles were willing to accept the Holy Spirit, they were made "clean". Indeed, one could argue that any Gentiles who were willing to accept the Holy Spirit, were made "clean".

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:28 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

@SpecialFrog

In short, no. Christ said he did not come to abolish the Law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. The Jews were not obliged to have him crucified you see. They instead could have accepted him as their messiah and king. But since this did not happen, Christ told his followers to preach to all the nations. No longer only to the Jews but to the uncircumcised as well. Laws which were given to signify the Jews being Gods chosen people were made no longer relevant. The Bible shows that Peter and many others had difficulty understanding this.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:30 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:@SpecialFrog

In short, no. Christ said he did not come to abolish the Law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. The Jews were not obliged to have him crucified you see. They instead could have accepted him as their messiah and king. But since this did not happen, Christ told his followers to preach to all the nations. No longer only to the Jews but to the uncircumcised as well. Laws which were given to signify the Jews being Gods chosen people were made no longer relevant. The Bible shows that Peter and many others had difficulty understanding this.

How do you determine which laws "we're given to signify the Jews being Gods chosen people"?

Also, if the Sanhedrin had wanted to execute Jesus they could have done so. Crucifixion is a Roman punishment.

I'm skeptical that Jesus existed at all but even if he did, the whole "Jews did it" narrative is suspect.

And if you want to discuss historicity there is a thread for that here:
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=12200
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:07 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

SpecialFrog wrote:How do you determine which laws "we're given to signify the Jews being Gods chosen people"?


Actually, I should have worded that a bit better. There were laws given to the Jews specifically because they were God's chosen people.

I'm not going to explain the entire Bible to you guys. And I'm sure you can understand why I feel it would be a waste of my time to do so.

Remember, you guys want to argue that Christians are hipocrites if they eat certain food like shellfish, but speak out against homosexuality. I think I have shown well enough to you, at least, that there certainly are reasons to believe that its ok to eat shrimp. I am satisfied.

I don't think you have such a well thought out argument to show me that the Bible teaches acceptance of homosexuality. Do you?

SpecialFrog wrote:..the whole "Jews did it" narrative is suspect.


I am somewhat thankful that you see it that way. I am also not a Jew-hater or some anti-jew conspiracy nut.

But it's horrible that you would say that you don't believe Jesus ever existed. Why would you say that?

SpecialFrog wrote: And if you want to discuss historicity there is a thread for that here:
http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/view ... 61&t=12200


Thank you for the invite but I doubt I will find anything worthwhile.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:49 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Dragan Glas wrote:You again try to step around the fact of what the vision meant. And your attempt to appear right by finding just one Commentary that doesn't disagree with you is a logical fallacy.


???

Dragan Glas wrote:According to Jewish beliefs, Gentiles were not "clean".


Ok.

Dragan Glas wrote: The vision was showing Peter that, because these particular Gentiles were willing to accept the Holy Spirit, they were made "clean". Indeed, one could argue that any Gentiles who were willing to accept the Holy Spirit, were made "clean".

Kindest regards,

James


Absolutely not! When Peter saw that the Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit, it did convince him that they were clean. But it is not because of the Holy Spirit that they were made clean. You have it backwards.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:11 am
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:How do you determine which laws "we're given to signify the Jews being Gods chosen people"?


Actually, I should have worded that a bit better. There were laws given to the Jews specifically because they were God's chosen people.

I'm not going to explain the entire Bible to you guys. And I'm sure you can understand why I feel it would be a waste of my time to do so.

Remember, you guys want to argue that Christians are hipocrites if they eat certain food like shellfish, but speak out against homosexuality. I think I have shown well enough to you, at least, that there certainly are reasons to believe that its ok to eat shrimp. I am satisfied.

Your reworded version isn't any better. What justifies your claim that some of the laws of
Moses don't apply to Christians but some do and how do you determine which ones do and don't?

thenexttodie wrote:I don't think you have such a well thought out argument to show me that the Bible teaches acceptance of homosexuality. Do you?

If I claimed it did that might be relevant. However, I said the opposite. But the bible doesn't accept a lot of things, which is kind of my point.

thenexttodie wrote:But it's horrible that you would say that you don't believe Jesus ever existed. Why would you say that?

I didn't say I believed he didn't exist I said I was skeptical. Why is that horrible? The evidence for a historical Jesus is poor enough that I don't feel I can say that he did exist with a reasonable degree of certainty. If better evidence comes along so be it. I don't have any strong investment in his existence or non-existence.

If you want to know why I hold this view you can read the thread I linked. If you don't then don't.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:43 am
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:Actually, I should have worded that a bit better. There were laws given to the Jews specifically because they were God's chosen people.


This is pure baloney. Where does it say that? Oh, never? Well done.
As SpecialFrog pointed out, how do you know which laws are for Jews and which ones aren't? The Bible certainly doesn't say "this one, this one, oh no not this one, this one".

The second problem: The ten commandments (originally fifteen as we know) were given to the Jews as well. Are we to assume that the ten commandments are only for the Jews and not for us?

Once again you show how you have no clue about the Bible at all, yet you assume you can teach us. Laughable.
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:27 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:You again try to step around the fact of what the vision meant. And your attempt to appear right by finding just one Commentary that doesn't disagree with you is a logical fallacy.


???

As I explained, you're relying on none of the Commentaries disagreeing with you so that you can appear right.

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:According to Jewish beliefs, Gentiles were not "clean".


Ok.

Dragan Glas wrote: The vision was showing Peter that, because these particular Gentiles were willing to accept the Holy Spirit, they were made "clean". Indeed, one could argue that any Gentiles who were willing to accept the Holy Spirit, were made "clean".

Kindest regards,

James

Absolutely not! When Peter saw that the Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit, it did convince him that they were clean. But it is not because of the Holy Spirit that they were made clean. You have it backwards.

Re-read Acts 10.

God made them clean through the Holy Spirit.

And, lest you forget this matter arose, this did not remove the prohibition against eating pork and other non-kosher foods.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:17 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

SpecialFrog wrote:
But the bible doesn't accept a lot of things, which is kind of my point.


Everything the Lord expects from you could be easily summarized in just a few sentences.

SpecialFrog wrote:I didn't say I believed he didn't exist I said I was skeptical. Why is that horrible? The evidence for a historical Jesus is poor enough that I don't feel I can say that he did exist with a reasonable degree of certainty. If better evidence comes along so be it. I don't have any strong investment in his existence or non-existence.

If you want to know why I hold this view you can read the thread I linked. If you don't then don't.


Well after reading the very first post and several replies, I am fully convinced that if I were to continue through the entire thread I would find nothing but fruity conspiracy theories.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:18 am
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:But the bible doesn't accept a lot of things, which is kind of my point.

Everything the Lord expects from you could be easily summarized in just a few sentences.

And what are those sentences?

Also you still haven't remotely justified your claims about why Jewish law is sometimes general and sometimes only applies because of "chosen people" status.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:42 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Dragan Glas wrote:Re-read Acts 10.

God made them clean through the Holy Spirit.

And, lest you forget this matter arose, this did not remove the prohibition against eating pork and other non-kosher foods.

Kindest regards,

James


You've been drinking too much of your own Kool-ade.

Dragan, nowhere in Acts 10 does it mention anything being made clean by the Holy Spirit. I already told you, you have it backwards. Gentiles can receive the Holy Spirit and this was something that showed Peter that they were made clean.

Let me put it to you another way. It's like trying to argue that the reason Fred is a smoker is because he has lung cancer.
The Holy Spirit is not what makes something clean or unclean.

Here are a few other points to help demonstrate your error:

1) Not every Gentile since then received the Holy Spirit.

2) Even a Jew receiving the Holy Spirit before then, according to scripture, seems to be a rare occurance.

3) Before than not, even every Jew was always considered to be clean.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:30 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Re-read Acts 10.

God made them clean through the Holy Spirit.

And, lest you forget this matter arose, this did not remove the prohibition against eating pork and other non-kosher foods.

Kindest regards,

James


You've been drinking too much of your own Kool-ade.

Dragan, nowhere in Acts 10 does it mention anything being made clean by the Holy Spirit. I already told you, you have it backwards. Gentiles can receive the Holy Spirit and this was something that showed Peter that they were made clean.

Let me put it to you another way. It's like trying to argue that the reason Fred is a smoker is because he has lung cancer.
The Holy Spirit is not what makes something clean or unclean.

Here are a few other points to help demonstrate your error:

1) Not every Gentile since then received the Holy Spirit.

2) Even a Jew receiving the Holy Spirit before then, according to scripture, seems to be a rare occurance.

3) Before than not, even every Jew was always considered to be clean.

I am speaking from Peter's perspective - not whether Cornelius was "clean" or not.

Jewish culture considered Gentiles to be "unclean" - that was Peter's perspective before he had his vision. Even then, he still argued with God, so bound-up with his cultural perspective was he.

It was only when God told him that "15 The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” - and that happened three times before Peter accepted it.

That's the point I'm making.

I erred in my earlier post when I said that God made them clean through the Holy Spirit - what I should have said was that God made them clean in Peter's eyes by their willingness to receive the Holy Spirit.

It should also be noted that the concept of receiving the Holy Spirit is a Christian idea - not a Jewish one, as they don't accept a trinitarian view of God. So it should not be surprising that Jews "receiving the Holy Spirit" is a rare occurrence - because it means that they're converting to Christianity.

And, as I noted earlier, none of this lifted the prohibition on eating non-kosher foods, which is what you're implying in your earlier posts.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:15 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Dragan Glas wrote:I am speaking from Peter's perspective - not whether Cornelius was "clean" or not.

Jewish culture considered Gentiles to be "unclean" - that was Peter's perspective before he had his vision. Even then, he still argued with God, so bound-up with his cultural perspective was he.

It was only when God told him that "15 The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” - and that happened three times before Peter accepted it.

That's the point I'm making.

I erred in my earlier post when I said that God made them clean through the Holy Spirit - what I should have said was that God made them clean in Peter's eyes by their willingness to receive the Holy Spirit.


Ok, I guess we can both agree on that then.

Dragan Glas wrote:It should also be noted that the concept of receiving the Holy Spirit is a Christian idea - not a Jewish one, as they don't accept a trinitarian view of God. So it should not be surprising that Jews "receiving the Holy Spirit" is a rare occurrence - because it means that they're converting to Christianity.


I thought this was interesting. But actually I think a case can be made for a triune God, relying solely on the Old Testament. Yet, as you pointed out, the Jews never seemed to show an understanding or an acceptance of this did they? But the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Old Testament, just not very often right? Didn't David ask God not to let his Holy Spirit depart from him or something like that? Hmmm...

Dragan Glas wrote:And, as I noted earlier, none of this lifted the prohibition on eating non-kosher foods, which is what you're implying in your earlier posts.

Kindest regards,

James


No, the prohibition on foods was lifted before then, when the Gentiles were made clean.

Look, tell me what makes more sense to you

God telling Peter to eat food that was once unclean but no longer
or
God telling Peter to eat unclean food that is still unclean; to show him that there will no longer be any distinction between Jews and Gentiles?

So go ahead, tell me Dragan Glas, which one of the above makes more fucking sense to you? A or B? I'll give you a hint, if you say B then I may as well be talking to a fucking spatula, because B doesn't really make any fucking sense at all!
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:01 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:Actually, I should have worded that a bit better. There were laws given to the Jews specifically because they were God's chosen people.


Inferno wrote:This is pure baloney. Where does it say that? Oh, never? Well done.As SpecialFrog pointed out, how do you know which laws are for Jews and which ones aren't?


It says this everywhere. "I will take you as my people and I will be your God", "I am the Lord" , "Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your decendants" "Follow these decrees and I will walk among you and you will be my people" ect....even "When your children ask you why do we do this, tell them its because the Lord spared us when he struck down the Egyptians." and so on.

Overall, its not that hard to figure out. Mostly just takes a little common sense. I'm not going to sit here and explain every single one. Your ignorance is obviously the result of laziness and I refuse to bear that burden for you.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:44 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:I am speaking from Peter's perspective - not whether Cornelius was "clean" or not.

Jewish culture considered Gentiles to be "unclean" - that was Peter's perspective before he had his vision. Even then, he still argued with God, so bound-up with his cultural perspective was he.

It was only when God told him that "15 The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” - and that happened three times before Peter accepted it.

That's the point I'm making.

I erred in my earlier post when I said that God made them clean through the Holy Spirit - what I should have said was that God made them clean in Peter's eyes by their willingness to receive the Holy Spirit.


Ok, I guess we can both agree on that then.

Dragan Glas wrote:It should also be noted that the concept of receiving the Holy Spirit is a Christian idea - not a Jewish one, as they don't accept a trinitarian view of God. So it should not be surprising that Jews "receiving the Holy Spirit" is a rare occurrence - because it means that they're converting to Christianity.


I thought this was interesting. But actually I think a case can be made for a triune God, relying solely on the Old Testament. Yet, as you pointed out, the Jews never seemed to show an understanding or an acceptance of this did they? But the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Old Testament, just not very often right? Didn't David ask God not to let his Holy Spirit depart from him or something like that? Hmmm...

As I said, the term is only used to refer to (God's) breath or spirit, not Holy Spirit in the sense that Christians refer to it as one aspect of the Holy Trinity.

It's important not to think of it in the Christian context.

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:And, as I noted earlier, none of this lifted the prohibition on eating non-kosher foods, which is what you're implying in your earlier posts.

Kindest regards,

James


No, the prohibition on foods was lifted before then, when the Gentiles were made clean.

Look, tell me what makes more sense to you

God telling Peter to eat food that was once unclean but no longer
or
God telling Peter to eat unclean food that is still unclean; to show him that there will no longer be any distinction between Jews and Gentiles?

So go ahead, tell me Dragan Glas, which one of the above makes more fucking sense to you? A or B? I'll give you a hint, if you say B then I may as well be talking to a fucking spatula, because B doesn't really make any fucking sense at all!

The vision was allegorical - it has nothing to do with eating actual food, kosher or otherwise.

The fact that these particular Gentiles were willing/ready to receive the Holy Spirit rendered them "clean".

In terms of eating actual foods, pork, etc, were still "unclean".

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Last edited by Dragan Glas on Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:29 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Dragan Glas wrote:As I said, the term is only used to refer to (God's) breath or spirit, not Holy Spirit in the sense that Christians refer to it as one aspect of the Holy Trinity.

It's important not to think of it in the Christian context.


Wrong.

Dragan Glas wrote:And, as I noted earlier, none of this lifted the prohibition on eating non-kosher foods, which is what you're implying in your earlier posts.

Kindest regards,

James


No, the prohibition on foods was lifted before then, when the Gentiles were made clean.

Look, tell me what makes more sense to you

God telling Peter to eat food that was once unclean but no longer
or
God telling Peter to eat unclean food that is still unclean; to show him that there will no longer be any distinction between Jews and Gentiles?

So go ahead, tell me Dragan Glas, which one of the above makes more fucking sense to you? A or B? I'll give you a hint, if you say B then I may as well be talking to a fucking spatula, because B doesn't really make any fucking sense at all![/quote]
Dragan Glas wrote:The vision was allegorical - it has nothing to do with eating actual food, kosher or otherwise.


The reason why I know that you don't really understand what you are talking about, is that you are unable to explain your proposed allegory. You are only using someone else's argument.


Dragan Glas wrote:The fact that these particular Gentiles were willing/ready to receive the Holy Spirit rendered them "clean".


You already agreed that you were wrong about this and later stated you were only speaking from Peter's perspective.

Dragan Glas wrote:In terms of eating actual foods, pork, etc, were still "unclean".


Dragan Glas, I can understand why it might be important to you, to be able to pretend like you know a lot about the Bible. Looks like someone tried to spare you by starting a thread where we might engage in a more light-hearted discussion. I refuse.

I think It's more important, that whenever either an individual or group fraudulently claims to have knowledge of a thing, to expose them fully.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:03 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:As I said, the term is only used to refer to (God's) breath or spirit, not Holy Spirit in the sense that Christians refer to it as one aspect of the Holy Trinity.

It's important not to think of it in the Christian context.


Wrong.

And your basis for making this claim...?

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:And, as I noted earlier, none of this lifted the prohibition on eating non-kosher foods, which is what you're implying in your earlier posts.

Kindest regards,

James


No, the prohibition on foods was lifted before then, when the Gentiles were made clean.

Where in the bible are Gentiles made clean prior to Peter's vision?

thenexttodie wrote:Look, tell me what makes more sense to you

God telling Peter to eat food that was once unclean but no longer
or
God telling Peter to eat unclean food that is still unclean; to show him that there will no longer be any distinction between Jews and Gentiles?

So go ahead, tell me Dragan Glas, which one of the above makes more fucking sense to you? A or B? I'll give you a hint, if you say B then I may as well be talking to a fucking spatula, because B doesn't really make any fucking sense at all!

Neither.

As I've told you already, it's got nothing to do with actually eating food - kosher or not!

That's why it's allegorical!

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:The vision was allegorical - it has nothing to do with eating actual food, kosher or otherwise.


The reason why I know that you don't really understand what you are talking about, is that you are unable to explain your proposed allegory. You are only using someone else's argument.

You're not arguing against me - you're arguing against biblical scholars who actually wrote the Commentaries.

And not just those online - I only chose one to which you might easily have access and check it for yourself - but books to which I have access: Jewish Study Bible, New Oxford Annotated Bible, and An Introduction To The New Testament, amongst others.

Are you seriously claiming to know more about this than they?

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:The fact that these particular Gentiles were willing/ready to receive the Holy Spirit rendered them "clean".


You already agreed that you were wrong about this and later stated you were only speaking from Peter's perspective.

Not wrong - just that I hadn't made it clear enough for you, since you showed you know little about Jewish culture.

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:In terms of eating actual foods, pork, etc, were still "unclean".


Dragan Glas, I can understand why it might be important to you, to be able to pretend like you know a lot about the Bible. Looks like someone tried to spare you by starting a thread where we might engage in a more light-hearted discussion. I refuse.

I think It's more important, that whenever either an individual or group fraudulently claims to have knowledge of a thing, to expose them fully.

I know enough about the bible, given my RC background, and am willing to put my trust in biblical scholars who actually have studied the languages and the bible in its cultural contexts.

I've no idea to what you're referring about a "light-hearted discussion" thread.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:34 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Dragan Glas wrote:
And your basis for making this claim...?


Where in the bible are Gentiles made clean prior to Peter's vision?



I feel I have already demonstrated the fact that none of you have any idea what you are talking about. Rather than explain to you every single question, or every single "Oh yeah! Well what about this!" Maybe you can provide some evidence for your side of the case. Whatever it is.

The rest of your post I don't really feel is worthwhile to comment on. To be honest, I didn't waste my time reading most of it because I know most of it would probably just be you blathering on about what Bible commentaries you have read.

BTW, I know what the Jews believed, then and now. I only pretended I didn't know because I was trying to fuck-start your head. I failed. Since its obvious that none of you even understand your own arguments, (this is because you copy them from other idiots, without taking the time to do any research at all to verify whether or not they hold water.) I thought I could help you by trying to usher you into an argument that a person who at least has a little bit of understanding about what the Bible, might make.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:21 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Greetings,

thenexttodie wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:
And your basis for making this claim...?


Where in the bible are Gentiles made clean prior to Peter's vision?

I feel I have already demonstrated the fact that none of you have any idea what you are talking about. Rather than explain to you every single question, or every single "Oh yeah! Well what about this!" Maybe you can provide some evidence for your side of the case. Whatever it is.

The rest of your post I don't really feel is worthwhile to comment on. To be honest, I didn't waste my time reading most of it because I know most of it would probably just be you blathering on about what Bible commentaries you have read.

BTW, I know what the Jews believed, then and now. I only pretended I didn't know because I was trying to fuck-start your head. I failed. Since its obvious that none of you even understand your own arguments, (this is because you copy them from other idiots, without taking the time to do any research at all to verify whether or not they hold water.) I thought I could help you by trying to usher you into an argument that a person who at least has a little bit of understanding about what the Bible, might make.

So, you're not going to answer the questions.

You'll forgive me when I take that as a failure on your part to provide evidence in support of your claims.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:41 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 12
 [ 222 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests