The Bible is full of suffering

[Alanantic]

See you do have a religion you adhere to.

Who's got a better chance of getting back to the Garden. That's all I want to know.

 

[Bubbajay]

If we are going to limit this to the Old Testament context alone, then (responding again to that post of yours) there are only two types of Messiah in the Old Testament.
In Leviticus there is the priest in the Tabernacle, which is also an 'initiatic' chain of priests initially governed by Moses.
Then there is the second form in the rest of the Old Testament after the Torah, which consists of God's appointed kings (both Davidic and also Gentiles like Cyrus) who have both authority and salvific roles (in relation to the Israelites).

The concept of Messiah we are familiar with in the New Testament emerges in extra-canonical 2nd Temple Jewish literature. To a sola scriptura person, this is completely shocking and offensive to here but it is the fact of the matter. Things being like this does not make Jesus a fraud or anything, that is not what I am saying.



What you do not get is that unless you suggest fowl play with the scriptures, then the principle of non-contradiction must apply. Things that are evident and strictly doctrinal cannot be contradicted and overridden by things that are vague, symbolic and esoteric. Doing so is not scripturally logical and ultimately means that you have no standard for exegesis (making everything you state purely subjective).
As I've noticed from your posts before (and Bubba above too) you like to pigeonhold and strawman my positions because you don't like dealing with contradictions I show in problematic theologies and eschatologies. I would advise against that, it is not Christ-like.

One of the dangers in this on the extreme end is that you end like how some of the early Christians (some of them even Church Fathers and not only heretics) who interpreted the entire Old Testament as metaphor, taking none of it literally, but taking the New Testament as literal.
The very existence of such things, as well as groups like the Marcionites and the Cathars are very evident in the nature of contradictions that arise from these views.

Again, don't strawman me, my position is very vehemently that all things in exegesis must have a firm foundation in evident, clear and unambiguous passages. Passages that are more symbolic in content must not contradict firm, unambitious foundational doctrine. This is how we tell orthodoxy from heresy in the scriptural sense.
You don't like that I say this, but that doesn't make me wrong, and doesn't mean that I know the scripture less than you.



Yes this is true, and for Jesus' parables you may in for a rude awakening to learn that most of them aren't that ambiguous and have much historical precedent. Most of Jesus' parables are directed at, and are often very sharp and eloquent criticisms, of different issues in the Judaisms (Pharisees, Sadducees etc) of his day, as well as theological, legalistic, moral/ethical and ritualistic criticisms. Because they are parables, like the genre broadly you can apply one parable to many things, but it renders Jesus incoherent to claim that he meant things he obviously didn't.

The first part is pure garbage. You're using the word "messiah" instead of "annointed", which was the word used in the OT. All the kings and prophets of the OT were called Gods annointed. The word " annointed" in the OT is used with a lower case a. Jesus was the Christ/Messiah/Annointed always using uppercase letters invoking deity. Jesus is King through his royal blood, priest through lineage, and the Son of God born of a virgin birth all at once. He fulfilled all the OT annointed roles all at once, and he was the God of the OT. Read John chapter 1, he was the "Word made flesh"

Muslim apologists always try and use word play to trip people up. Its deceitful and proves the religion of Islam will do and say anything to prop up their pseudo Christian cult. Its sad really

 

[Bubbajay]

Gotta love those anachronisms. You are injecting modern meanings into these terms which have nothing to do with the 1st century Greek term παῖς
On "minister" too, in the 1st century context this refers to a person who is employed to administer under the authority of a king, and who are under the thumb of that king. It doesn't refer to Church Pastors ROTFL



You so willingly describe yourself here in detail.

Deny and project. Thanks you using the "I'm made of rubber and you're made of glue" defense. I got a chuckle out of it. Lol

 

[Bubbajay]

No the term Messiah appears as early in Leviticus, long before the term son of man appears in the Old Testament.
The term in it's first form is associated with anointed priests.

if it is the Messiah priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, then let him offer for the sin which he has committed a young bull without blemish to the Lord for a sin offering.
- Leviticus 4:3

(the phrase "Messiah priest" sounds awkward but that is a literal translation of the Hebrew).

The priest from among Aaron’s sons, who is Messiah to succeed him, shall offer it to the Lord as decreed for ever; the whole of it shall be burned.
- Leviticus 6:22

(again translated literally it sounds awkward in English but that's what the Hebrew says)


As for Son of Man, technically it is actually "Son Of Adam" but whatever. The phrase is used differently throughout various books of the Old Testament. In both Ezekiel and Daniel it seems to be used as reference to a person, whereas in books like Psalms it is used to refer to the people of Israel themselves.



That is not what I am saying, but I do warn against reading these texts in the superficial way that you seem to be. The texts attest to more complex elements than simply just what you say there.
Jesus claimed to be the expected Jewish Messiah yes (and there was a lot of expectation for this around the 2nd Temple Period), I never denied that, but the history of the term in the Old Testament is more far reaching than simply that.

Its says "if an annointed priest sins", it DOES NOT use the English word Messiah, which was a title. You're using deceit to try and prove a point. The sad part is ALL Muslim apologist do this. If you can't quote the verses right I will not respond to you again. You're an intellectually and morally dishonest person.

 

[Bubbajay]

Maybe I do. Maybe I don’t. Actually I think I’m going to start the Zensunni religion in real life, you in?

I'll pass

 

[Nikōn]

Deny and project. Thanks you using the "I'm made of rubber and you're made of glue" defense. I got a chuckle out of it. Lol

The difference between me and you is a large gap. You make claims without evidence, whereas I go to direct sources and find historical and etymological evidence against said claims.
You merely throw up your arms and scream that I am wrong, and make further fallacious claims.
You say "they automatically pick the one that fits their agenda or doctrine" as a deflection from the many problems I show in your lack of reasoning and inconsistencies. I am not merely throwing your statement back at you when you are the one who feels justified to avoid at all costs backing up your claims.

 

[Bubbajay]

Who's got a better chance of getting back to the Garden. That's all I want to know.

The technocrats are trying to build that garden now. In fact we've been seeing the emergence of it since 9/11. That's Gnostic dream of yours will become a reality some day, but not for a couple more decades maybe. It won't last long though

 

[Nikōn]

You're using the word "messiah" instead of "annointed", which was the word used in the OT.

You cannot be this dumb. They are the same word. "Messiah", "Annointed", "Christ", are all words used to translate the Hebrew word Moshiach (מָשִׁיחַ). End of story.
You are arguing about the way a particular translator rendered a word rather than the actual word being translated. This is a red herring fallacy.

 

[Bubbajay]

The difference between me and you is a large gap. You make claims without evidence, whereas I go to direct sources and find historical and etymological evidence against said claims.
You merely throw up your arms and scream that I am wrong, and make further fallacious claims.
You say "they automatically pick the one that fits their agenda or doctrine" as a deflection from the many problems I show in your lack of reasoning and inconsistencies. I am not merely throwing your statement back at you when you are the one who feels justified to avoid at all costs backing up your claims.

There's been books written about the life of Muhammad by Muslim scholars. Many have said that Muhammad claimed he first though he was demon Possessed. If you got a problem take it up with them, in fact what I claim comes from historians that have far more knowledge of Islam than you. The quote comes from Muhammad's sister in law who claimed he told their family this. I've listed the name of one historian the the 9th century. All you do is deny. You are incapable of having a valid conversation with anyone. You also lie through your teeth by misquoting Bible verses. You're pretty much scum

 

[Nikōn]

There's been books written about the life of Muhammad by Muslim scholars. Many have said that Muhammad claimed he first though he was demon Possessed. If you got a problem take it up with them, in fact what I claim comes from historians that have far more knowledge of Islam than you. The quote comes from Muhammad's sister in law who claimed he told their family this. I've listed the name of one historian the the 9th century. All you do is deny. You are incapable of having a valid conversation with anyone. You also lie through your teeth by misquoting Bible verses. You're pretty much scum

Stop bringing up Muhammad and Islam when we are talking about the Bible. Again, what the hell is wrong with you buddy. This is pure projection, non sequitur and red herring all at it's finest.

 

[Bubbajay]

You cannot be this dumb. They are the same word. "Messiah", "Annointed", "Christ", are all words used to translate the Hebrew word Moshiach (מָשִׁיחַ). End of story.
You are arguing about the way a particular translator rendered a word rather than the actual word being translated. This is a red herring fallacy.

I thing you're either playing dumb, are dyslexic, or have been dropped on your head. Messiah is a title. Yes it means annointed, but in a way describing deity since its capitalised. Understand? The word " messiah" you quoted from the OT was written as annointed, and wasn't capitalised like you tried to do while quoting it. Understand? You're a bullshit artist who's been called out. All Muslims should be proud of people like you. In fact you make the religion seem more of a joke than it already does. Get you them virgins that promised to you after you die. What a carrot to stick in front of male perverts.

 

[Bubbajay]

Stop bringing up Muhammad and Islam when we are talking about the Bible. Again, what the hell is wrong with you buddy. This is pure projection, non sequitur and red herring all at it's finest.

I'm answering your rubbish. In fact I'm not answering any more question of comments until you can learn not to be deceitful. I hate liars.

 

[Nikōn]

I thing you're either playing dumb, are dyslexic, or have been dropped on your head. Messiah is a title. Yes it means annointed, but in a way describing deity since its capitalised. Understand? The word " messiah" you quoted from the OT was written as annointed, and wasn't capitalised like you tried to do while quoting it.

I repeat: You are arguing about the way a particular translator rendered a word rather than the actual word being translated. This is a red herring fallacy.

You're all about point scoring without having any points

 

[Nikōn]

I'm answering your rubbish. In fact I'm not answering any more question of comments until you can learn not to be deceitful. I hate liars.

So since you hate liars, why do you keep perverting and ignoring the etymology of the words used and instead insist on your own wild personal interpretations of them?, not only that but insist on displaying a profound ignorance to the original languages? Too many times in a matter of just three pages, I've debunked every relevant (to the topic) claim you've made and you haven't had a single counterargument to any of the evidence provided.

 

[Bubbajay]

I repeat: You are arguing about the way a particular translator rendered a word rather than the actual word being translated. This is a red herring fallacy.

You're all about point scoring without having any points
[/Qq
Yes. There are many "translations" that have came out since 1882. There's even an LGBT friendly version. I use the KJV. Try using a traditional one that hasn't came out in the last couple decades. Try your arguments by quoting from the KJV the original English version, and you'd get shut down really fast by most people. You use your arguments against new baby Christians and it might work. The thing is I've studied textual criticism, Islamic apologetics, Roman catholic apologetics, and a few others. I know you work from apologetic websites and playbooks. There's reasons why you have to do the things you do. The thing is I could take to task any Muslim apologist alive. Its not a brag but a fact. You all have used the same material for the last 40 years lol

 

[Bubbajay]

So since you hate liars, why do you keep perverting and ignoring the etymology of the words used and instead insist on your own wild personal interpretations of them?, not only that but insist on displaying a profound ignorance to the original languages? Too many times in a matter of just three pages, I've debunked every relevant (to the topic) claim you've made and you haven't had a single counterargument to any of the evidence provided.

See there you go again. Its not interpretations, its basic English and quoting the verses correctly like they should be .You're not spouting anything new. Your garbage has been shut down many times.

 

[Nikōn]

Yes. There are many "translations" that have came out since 1882. There's even an LGBT friendly version. I use the KJV. Try using a traditional one that hasn't came out in the last couple decades. Try your arguments by quoting from the KJV the original English version, and you'd get shut down really fast by most people. You use your arguments against new baby Christians and it might work. The thing is I've studied textual criticism, Islamic apologetics, Roman catholic apologetics, and a few others. I know you work from apologetic websites and playbooks. There's reasons why you have to do the things you do. The thing is I could take to task any Muslim apologist alive. Its not a brag but a fact. You all have used the same material for the last 40 years lol

What does this have to do with Hebrew and Greek? more non-sequiturs and red herrings.
Now you're not only arguing against Hebrew and Greek but arguing for the supremacy of a particular outdated English translation.

 

[Nikōn]

See there you go again. Its not interpretations, its basic English and quoting the verses correctly like they should be .You're not spouting anything new. Your garbage has been shut down many times.

"basic English"? again, I'm showing evidence through the Greek and Hebrew, not English. You are making claims for interpretation of English terms (which come with it's own cultural baggage) whereas I am showing you the etymology and semantics of the Greek and Hebrew terms from the horse's mouth.
No I'm not spouting anything new, this is basic etymology I am speaking of, nothing of my own interpretation unlike your ideological interpretations based of translations (which is plain hilariousness).

 

[Bubbajay]

You're incapable of being truthful. That's a personality issue on your part, because anyone who's truthful wouldn't resort to the tactics you're TRYING to use. You're what the bible calls a "reprobate". I guarantee you're a lying, and deceitful person in your everyday life. These type of things just don't show themselves on the internet.

 

[Nikōn]

You're incapable of being truthful. That's a personality issue on your part, because anyone who's truthful wouldn't resort to the tactics you're TRYING to use. You're what the bible calls a "reprobate". I guarantee you're a lying, and deceitful person in your everyday life. These type of things just don't show themselves on the internet.

All you have is personal attacks, no counterarguments. You know that I am correct, you make assumptions of my intentions and the evidence I provide disturbs you.