• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread Signs of the End Times

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well maybe I missed your explanation of what it means to take the Name of God in vain

Here it is:

HalleysComet explains what it means to Take the Lord's name in Vain

I recommend your read the posts that follow, as they get into some aspects of how Jews interpret the law.

To take the Name of God in vain is to disregard his commands

Go back and read "HalleysComet explains what it means to Take the Lord's name in Vain" so we're talking about the same thing.

You do not know what I do, so you cannot assume anything

By and large my comments have been deduction, not assumption. When you are evasive and play coy with your replies I have no choice but deduce the most likely answer. If you don't like it, then answer the questions plainly. You've written quite a bit about your beliefs and I know the Bible far better than you do. You've left far too many clues to keep playing coy. After this absurdity I'm not going to be as patient with your coy attempts at dodging questions.

I keep the commands, pertaining to what Jesus established.—Another thing is I am not a Jew living in Israel, if I were to go to Israel, I would observe the laws of the land.

Please be specific. What "laws" would you observe if you were living in Israel that you do not observe now?

Most of the time you talk a lot of hyperbole---my genocidal intentions towards blacks. (“Genocide,” a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group)

You seem intent on taking things out of context---My intentions is to show people what God is going to do to those who refuse to repent, it is not just blacks but whites also.

I find it interesting that you haven't answered the question, but complained about it being asked. Are you trying to hide something by dodging the question?

Regardless of if you want to exterminate the blacks in South Africa or subjugate them by restoring your beloved Apartheid is irrelevant to the question of if you're a murderer. Your hatred of them is plain and drips from your posts like poison from a baited blade. The Bible answers the question for us.

1 John 3:15
Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

Your hatred of those who are not of your race makes you, in your heart, a murderer. Please, don't embarrass yourself by pretending you don't hate these people. Even if you never used the actual word "hate" in your writing, your animosity has not been concealed.

Next up:

34. Ex. 20:13 — Respect your father or mother — Yemenite->Ex. 20:12

I suspect you follow this one, given your comments about how marriages should be agreed upon by the family. I'm still going to ask because I'm not aware of any comments you've made that are explicit on this point.
 
In other words, Deutoronomy is not the inerrant word of Yahweh, but Luke and Matthew are. Wouldn't that involve interpretation on your part? Something you claim to never have to do?

Or are you doing what most Christians do and have done since James and Paul split - pick and choose which of the doctrines contained in the Bible to follow, citing those passages that support your preferred view and ignoring any contrary views?
But should one not go back to the original plan of the Creator—man is the one who deviated, and it took until Jesus came to rectify what man corrupted.

It all started going wrong here--Gen 4:19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah.

So from there on corruption was on the increase.

The Creator said one wife.—now Solomon goes and marries 700 wives, the mind boggles.

So Jesus goes back to the beginning, and from there on, he sets the conditions for the marriage covenant, so it will be upon the words of Jesus that man will be held accountable!!
 
But should one not go back to the original plan of the Creator—man is the one who deviated, and it took until Jesus came to rectify what man corrupted.

It all started going wrong here--Gen 4:19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah.

So from there on corruption was on the increase.

The Creator said one wife.—now Solomon goes and marries 700 wives, the mind boggles.

So Jesus goes back to the beginning, and from there on, he sets the conditions for the marriage covenant, so it will be upon the words of Jesus that man will be held accountable!!

Seriously?

Did you READ the Old Testament?

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
2 Samuel 12:8.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt sister.

David already had more than a half a dozen wives by the time he was GIVEN Saul's harem by God. God took CREDIT for David getting the harem. Do you seriously think God would take credit for something that he found to be abominable?

As for Gen 4:19, there's no condemnation in that passage. There's nothing like "and it angered God" or "And they sinned before God" or "and God struck him dead on his wedding night with Zillah," just a matter of fact one-liner in a genealogy.
 
Last edited:
Funny how Jesus claimed on one hand that the law would not change but then took away God approved divorce and remarriage with the other. It's as if his right hand did not know what his left was doing. Yet again we see a fundamental conflict. If divorce followed by remarriage is not allowed, then that is a change from the Old Testament to the New. If that has changed, why not the kosher laws?

Reaching back a bit to Peter's dream of the net. One of the MAJOR interpretation conceits used to support Jesus as the Messiah is that individual Bible prophesies can refer to multiple events. Several of the messianic passages, in Isaiah for example, refer not just to Jesus but to a human military leader who came and went in the inter-testimonial period. This conceit, that a single prophesy can refer to multiple events, is in fact essential to claim many of the prophesies associated with Jesus as actually referring to him.

With this in mind, Peter's dream of the net likely refers to BOTH extending the ministry to Gentiles AND abolishing the kosher laws. Denying the possibility that the passage can convey both meanings necessitates a denial of many of the prophesies traditionally associated with Jesus the Christ. This in turn would cast doubt upon the divinity of Christ or at the very least the accuracy of the Gospels. Why would an accurate Gospel depict Jesus as fulfilling prophesies that were not about him?

The main task of Jesus as he put it was to see that the Torah and Tanakh were maintained as the means to reveal the will of the Creator.—{ Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. Mat 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.)
So through the LAW God will fulfil his redemptive plan.

Many thought that Jesus would come as a military commander, that is one aspect of prophecy---but the other aspect is that he would first come as the Saviour providing atonement for sin.

The vision that was given to Peter was and is only to show Peter that the Gentiles could now be made clean and enter into the covenantal providence of God.
It had nothing to do with doing away with the kosher teachings of Leviticus 11. If it had it would have been discussed at the Jerusalem council, in Acts Chapter 15--- Acts 15:14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself.

There was no discussion involving the abolishment of the dietary laws.

Marriage was and is always high on the agenda of God the Creator—so the word of Jesus is the final injunction for marriage---Philp_2:10 that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.
 
But should one not go back to the original plan of the Creator—man is the one who deviated, and it took until Jesus came to rectify what man corrupted.

It all started going wrong here--Gen 4:19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah.

So from there on corruption was on the increase.

Hardly. If we accept that the Bible is accurate, then deviation and corruption started with Adam, and Eve. Their decision to increase the amount of fruit in their diet was where it all started going wrong, unless you think it might be more appropriate to lay the blame at the foot of the being that created the Serpent that tempted Eve. Essentially, Yahweh is the source of the corruption in this world.

The Creator said one wife.—now Solomon goes and marries 700 wives, the mind boggles.

Show us, chapter and verse where in the OT Yahweh says "one spouse/wife/husband". That is the best shot you've got for "what the Creator said", even though the OT was written down only about 2,500 years ago.

So Jesus goes back to the beginning, and from there on, he sets the conditions for the marriage covenant, so it will be upon the words of Jesus that man will be held accountable!!

Show us where in the OT that Yahweh said, "One man, one woman (at a time)". Not inferred, flat out stated it.
 
Not if it is proving futile as it is here. Even The Apostles left cities where the gospel was not being received. You'd know that if you actually READ the Bible. It's particularly shameful for you as hiding here is keeping you from the task you feel God has appointed you.

You seem to be confusing being stubborn and stiff-necked with being virtuous. If your commission is to reform the church then talking to atheists isn't even on your agenda except as incidental evangelism of opportunity.

You are Jonah and this forum is the belly of your whale.

Moderators: Would it be a breach of forum rules for me to refer to "Paul Bethke" as "Jonah?" I would be doing this not as an insult or an attempt to mock him but shorthand for my interpretation of his behavior in light of his claims about a divine commission. It would also be expressing hope that he will one day mature morally and discard some, if not all, of the degenerate beliefs about race and gender he currently professes.

Once again you show an enormous amount of ignorance—Jonah was sent to a place he did not want to go—but he went even though reluctantly—Atheist must also HEAR what is their fate if they do not repent.

Coming onto the Forum gives me insight as to why atheists do not believe.

You do not know anything with regards to my commission, all you do is guess all the time making stupid comments. But you do have a few interesting things to take note of!!
 
The main task of Jesus as he put it was to see that the Torah and Tanakh were maintained as the means to reveal the will of the Creator.—{ Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. Mat 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.)

So through the LAW God will fulfil his redemptive plan.



Many thought that Jesus would come as a military commander, that is one aspect of prophecy---but the other aspect is that he would first come as the Saviour providing atonement for sin.



The vision that was given to Peter was and is only to show Peter that the Gentiles could now be made clean and enter into the covenantal providence of God.

It had nothing to do with doing away with the kosher teachings of Leviticus 11. If it had it would have been discussed at the Jerusalem council, in Acts Chapter 15--- Acts 15:14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself.



There was no discussion involving the abolishment of the dietary laws.



Marriage was and is always high on the agenda of God the Creator—so the word of Jesus is the final injunction for marriage---Philp_2:10 that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.



That's a whole lotta words to fail to make a point. There supposed to be an argument in there that counters anything I've written? It reads like retreading old ground while flailing like a panicked extra in a Godzilla movie. You can't even stay on topic son. You need to take a deep breath and focus before responding again.

Now, back to the laws. Do you honor your father and mother?

Do ya?
 
Last edited:
Why would you want to know?

Personally, I would like to know why it is that you violate the bible as you do. Your interprreteation are wrong and you persist with them. I want to know why you think the bible is wrong and only you are right.

Down the list, why did the grass not wither at the 2010 WC?

Why is Randi not blind?

Why are all of your victims not blind?

You claimed that all of these things would come true.

I put it to you that you are clearly a false prophet. Such false prophets are clearly identified in the bible. Why is it that I, an atheist, can look it up and you cannot?

Explain that.
 
I put it to you that you are clearly a false prophet. Such false prophets are clearly identified in the bible. Why is it that I, an atheist, can look it up and you cannot?

Explain that.

He prefers to point out the speck in your eye rather than remove the plank in his own.
 
I think a huge problem is trying to apply the words of the old testament literally. Jesus himself preached against that.

When the prostitute was to be stoned to death, in accordance with the law, it was Jesus who put a stop to it. Jesus said that they should ignore the letter of the law. They, who were not without sin, were unfit to make such judgments.

Should we say that the prostitute Jesus saved was actually married to the first of her tricks? Hey wait a minute. That guy was probably a married man as well, wasn't he?

There are a lot of folks here at ISF. Very few believe in any sort of divine law, and many are openly hostile to the idea of divine law, but among the rest of us, we just hate to see divine law used irrationally or unjustly, and that's where some of us are coming from. Your ideas, carried to a logical end, would result in much misery. There just hasn't been much thought put into them. We're asking you to put some thought into it. Now, back to that prostitute Jesus saved from stoning.

So the virgin prostitute has sex with a married man. So far so good. Nothing out of the ordinary here. Who is now married to whom? She can't be married to him, because he was married to someone else already. We could solve the problem by stoning her to death, but Jesus put the kibosh on that, so there's no solution there. He can't have two wives. She can't be married to a man who is married to someone else. Jesus says we can't stone her to death to solve the problem. Now what?

The idea that sex= marriage cannot be correct.

All too often people pick and choose Bible passages that they like, but that isn't really acceptable. Obviously, the passages that suggest that sex automatically equals marriage cannot be correct, because that is inconsistent with other biblical teaching. They must be describing an ideal form of behavior, rather than some sort of magical transformation that occurs due to physical contact.


Looks like you want to complicate a very simple issue—where do you come by a “virgin” prostitute, if she is a virgin how can she become a prostitute?

The prostitute that Jesus saved from the mob, was caught in the very act, so where is the man?

Jesus did not set aside the law, he stated that the one without sin must throw the first stone, so he upheld the law.

So now he showed mercy to the woman and did not condemn her, but told her to leave her life of sin. This is still applicable today—forgiveness on the basis that one does not return to a life of sin.

Sex as shown throughout the Scriptures is an act of marriage---a man takes a woman and lies with her and they become married.
Gen_4:1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."
Gen_4:17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.
Gen_38:2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and lay with her;
Gen_16:3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. Gen 16:4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress.

We are here in discussion of what marriage should be and not what it is today—so again what Jesus proclaimed is what the Creator ordained in the beginning, and that is what the Creator requires in the future.

It will be on this basis that man and women will be judged---it is the express purpose of God to do away with adultery as the source of corruption---(Rev 19:1 After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting: "Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
Rev 19:2 for true and just are his judgments. He has condemned the great prostitute who corrupted the earth by her adulteries. He has avenged on her the blood of his servants."
 
Looks like you want to complicate a very simple issue—where do you come by a “virgin” prostitute, if she is a virgin how can she become a prostitute?

ALL prostitutes start off as virgins at one point or another. It's a simple progression of events.

  1. Woman is a virgin.
  2. She gets paid for sex
  3. Former virgin has prostituted herself
  4. If she persists in being paid for sex, the former virgin will have become a prostitute.

It's a simple cause effect progression. Here's another one:

  1. Man makes prophesies.
  2. Prophesies do not come true.
  3. Man is now a false prophet.

See? Cause and effect can be very simple, at least outside quantum physics. Then things get weird.
 
Personally, I would like to know why it is that you violate the bible as you do. Your interprreteation are wrong and you persist with them. I want to know why you think the bible is wrong and only you are right.

Down the list, why did the grass not wither at the 2010 WC?

Why is Randi not blind?

Why are all of your victims not blind?

You claimed that all of these things would come true.

I put it to you that you are clearly a false prophet. Such false prophets are clearly identified in the bible. Why is it that I, an atheist, can look it up and you cannot? [/hiliute] Explain that.
As I said the previous predictions were set aside for greater events to take place—events even greater than I envisaged. I cannot be a false prophet when I proclaim the Scriptures as the true Word of the Creator, endorsed by Jesus. I do not interpret the Bible I compare the Scriptures with the Scriptures, using the Scriptures as the source of what I proclaim—nowhere can you show me where I have not done this! You cannot put it to me.
 
ALL prostitutes start off as virgins at one point or another. It's a simple progression of events.

  1. Woman is a virgin.
  2. She gets paid for sex
  3. Former virgin has prostituted herself
  4. If she persists in being paid for sex, the former virgin will have become a prostitute.

It's a simple cause effect progression. Here's another one:

  1. Man makes prophesies.
  2. Prophesies do not come true.
  3. Man is now a false prophet.

See? Cause and effect can be very simple, at least outside quantum physics. Then things get weird.

There is a difference between a prediction and a prophecy, which you do not seem to understand.
So who makes the virgin a prostitute—is it not wicked man who lies?
 
As I said the previous predictions were set aside for greater events to take place—events even greater than I envisaged.

I cannot be a false prophet when I proclaim the Scriptures as the true Word of the Creator, endorsed by Jesus.

Unless you changed your prophesies BEFORE the events were supposed to occur, then you're just making post-hock excuses for being a false prophet. You can scream the name of Jesus all you want, but you're still a false prophet.

I do not interpret the Bible I compare the Scriptures with the Scriptures, using the Scriptures as the source of what I proclaim—nowhere can you show me where I have not done this!
You cannot put it to me.

No, that's interpreting. I can call beer-battered, bacon-wrapped fried clams a "weight loss food" all I want, but that doesn't make it so.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/interpret

verb (used with object)
1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate:
to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.
2. to construe or understand in a particular way:
to interpret a reply as favorable.
3. to bring out the meaning of (a dramatic work, music, etc.) by performance or execution.
4. to perform or render (a song, role in a play, etc.) according to one's own understanding or sensitivity:
The actor interpreted Lear as a weak, pitiful old man.
5. to translate orally.
6. Computers.

to use an interpreter to transform (a program written in a high-level language) into a sequence of machine actions, one statement at a time, executing each statement immediately before going on to transform the next one.
to read (the patterns of holes in punched cards) with an interpreter, printing the interpreted data on the same cards so that they can be read more conveniently by people.

See also interpreter (def 3).

verb (used without object)
7. to translate what is said in a foreign language.
8. to explain something; give an explanation.

I don't know why you chafe at the term "interpreting" anyway. It's a perfectly reasonable word and bears repeating.
 
As I said the previous predictions were set aside for greater events to take place—events even greater than I envisaged.

I cannot be a false prophet when I proclaim the Scriptures as the true Word of the Creator, endorsed by Jesus. I do not interpret the Bible I compare the Scriptures with the Scriptures, using the Scriptures as the source of what I proclaim—nowhere can you show me where I have not done this!
You cannot put it to me.

You claim, all on your own, and in clear contradistinction to the actual meanings and usages of the actual word in actual Hebrew*, that παρθένος means something different when applied to women than it does when applied to men. This is the very nature of "interpretation"; you change the actual meanings of words to be able to pretend that they "really mean" what you, personally, want them to mean.

You are welcome.

*Even the great conservative lexicographer of Koiné, James Strong, disagrees with you, to wit: "...a maiden, a virgin; extended to men who have not known women." Nowehre except in your personal imagination does "virgin" mean "sexually active". Again, you are welcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom