Paul Bethke vs the 613 Mitzvot

[JayUtah]

I wonder how they handle all the misused homophones when translating the Twilight books.

Punny wordplay is almost impossible to translate. Remember Marty McFly in the 1950s diner? "Can have a Pepsi Free?" "If you want a Pepsi you're gonna pay for it." "Just give me a Tab." "I can't give you a tab until you order something." That banter simply doesn't work in any other language where "free" and "tab" don't have the same overloaded meanings. The translations of that scene are awkward.

 

[Paul Bethke]

So what? None of that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Yes, the New Testament claims that Jesus was born to a virgin. What's being pointed out, and what you're denying despite all the evidence, is that Jesus was FAR from the first to make such a claim or have such a claim made about him.

What you're doing is the equivalent of a "Twilight" fan claiming that Edward and Bella were the frist example of a vampire being depicted as a romantic figure in fiction. When confronted with examples from earlier stories of that exact phenomenon, you're responding by quoting from Twilight as if that would somehow prove the whole Buffy / Angel / Spike love triangle never happened.

Even if Jesus WAS born to a virgin mother and you could prove it, that would do NOTHING to address the fact that the same claim was being made about other religious figures for, quite literally, thousands of years before the birth of Christ.

So you say, based on hearsay with no written proof --only a deduction made by yourself.
It has always been the purpose to imitate the truth with myths.
There is only this account of Jesus who was born of the virgin Mary, others have tried to come up with a similar account based on the actual event.

It is like Islam who claims that Mohammed received a revelation—but when studied it is very evident that Mohammad plagiarised the Koran. Mohammad came on the scene 600 years after Christ, and had access to the Old and the New Covenant writings.

It is like the black tribes who want to change history to show how noble they are, but their present actions prove how corrupt they still are.

You SEE this has always and will always be the attempt to distort the truth by inventing myths very similar to the truth. Just like counterfeiting money.

But that is understandable that is why we focus on the laws inscribed on stone.

 

[Border Reiver]

So you say, based on hearsay with no written proof --only a deduction made by yourself.

Actually, that's not what was said.

You quoted what was said.

Then you went off and responded to something else.

Try again.

 

[halleyscomet]

So you say, based on hearsay with no written proof --only a deduction made by yourself.

It has always been the purpose to imitate the truth with myths.

There is only this account of Jesus who was born of the virgin Mary, others have tried to come up with a similar account based on the actual event.



It is like Islam who claims that Mohammed received a revelation—but when studied it is very evident that Mohammad plagiarised the Koran. Mohammad came on the scene 600 years after Christ, and had access to the Old and the New Covenant writings.



It is like the black tribes who want to change history to show how noble they are, but their present actions prove how corrupt they still are.



You SEE this has always and will always be the attempt to distort the truth by inventing myths very similar to the truth. Just like counterfeiting money.



But that is understandable that is why we focus on the laws inscribed on stone.

There's this novel new technique in web forum interaction. It's called, "responding to what people actually wrote and not imaginary ******** they never said." You might want to give it a try. I know I'd find you more interesting if you actually responded to what I actually wrote.

To extend the Twilight metaphor, you're now quoting Twilight fan-fiction to try and "debunk" my commentary of the Buffy/Spike/Angel triangle.

 

[Border Reiver]

So what? None of that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Yes, the New Testament claims that Jesus was born to a virgin. What's being pointed out, and what you're denying despite all the evidence, is that Jesus was FAR from the first to make such a claim or have such a claim made about him.

What you're doing is the equivalent of a "Twilight" fan claiming that Edward and Bella were the frist example of a vampire being depicted as a romantic figure in fiction. When confronted with examples from earlier stories of that exact phenomenon, you're responding by quoting from Twilight as if that would somehow prove the whole Buffy / Angel / Spike love triangle never happened.

Even if Jesus WAS born to a virgin mother and you could prove it, that would do NOTHING to address the fact that the same claim was being made about other religious figures for, quite literally, thousands of years before the birth of Christ.

So you say, based on hearsay with no written proof --only a deduction made by yourself.
It has always been the purpose to imitate the truth with myths.
There is only this account of Jesus who was born of the virgin Mary, others have tried to come up with a similar account based on the actual event.

It is like Islam who claims that Mohammed received a revelation—but when studied it is very evident that Mohammad plagiarised the Koran. Mohammad came on the scene 600 years after Christ, and had access to the Old and the New Covenant writings.

It is like the black tribes who want to change history to show how noble they are, but their present actions prove how corrupt they still are.

You SEE this has always and will always be the attempt to distort the truth by inventing myths very similar to the truth. Just like counterfeiting money.

But that is understandable that is why we focus on the laws inscribed on stone.

I thought it might be appropriate to ensure that people where aware of what what you were responding to - notice how your response bears little to no resemblance to the points raised in the initial quote.

Now to address your misconceptions:

a. The Jesus story is NOT the first instance of a virgin birth story. There are a multitude of such stories worldwide - many of which predate the Gospels. While later myths MIGHT have been derived from the Jesus myth, it is beyond ludicrous to state that a story that existed centuries BEFORE the gospels were committed to paper is an attempt to copy the Christ story.

b. Later revelations (lets use Mohammed's as an example) are not necessarily false simply by virtue of being later. Granted, there is the possibility that the later revelations are derived from the earlier works, however to discount them simply on the basis of them not being the first would mean that you would need to discard the teachings of Jesus, Isiah, Samuel, etc. as the revelations of those figures are derived from earlier teachings.

c. No one brought up historical revisionism - although if you want to discuss the Bible as a piece of historical revisionism we can do that. I believe I mentioned that much of the early parts of the OT are most definitely an exercise in social control and historical myth-making for the purposes of creating a group identity.

d. Just because something is written down in your favourite book does not make it real. If it was I'd be off with Thorin and Co.

 

[Patchwork Moth]

To extend the Twilight metaphor, you're now quoting Twilight fan-fiction to try and "debunk" my commentary of the Buffy/Spike/Angel triangle.

Does that mean this can be called 50 shades of Bethke?

 

[halleyscomet]

Does that mean this can be called 50 shades of Bethke?

If we base it on the rules Paul Bethke has laid out for sex, it would be about married people having missionary position sex only for procreation. That seems an appropriate analogy.

If only we could get him to go on a "Deadpool Kills Twilight" style tangent instead.

 

[halleyscomet]

Does that mean this can be called 50 shades of Bethke?

This article makes a very good point about something "50 Shades of Bethkeinaity" should probably NOT assume about the male protagonist:

http://www.atheistrev.com/2017/05/anti-lgbt-bigotry-and-discomfort-with.html

It's easy to get personal in threads like this, especially when people are discussing their religious beliefs and those beliefs are morally repugnant to others in the thread. The linked article makes some very good points about WHY using the pop psychology arguments so often turned to in such cases may be detrimental, possibly even symptomatic of the very cognitive dissonance we're accusing others of engaging in.

 

[Paul Bethke]

There's this novel new technique in web forum interaction. It's called, "responding to what people actually wrote and not imaginary ******** they never said." You might want to give it a try. I know I'd find you more interesting if you actually responded to what I actually wrote.

To extend the Twilight metaphor, you're now quoting Twilight fan-fiction to try and "debunk" my commentary of the Buffy/Spike/Angel triangle.

The thing is to keep it simple!!

 

[JayUtah]

The thing is to keep it simple!!

No. The thing is to answer the question you're asked, at the appropriate level of sophistication. One way to tell whether someone is sincere is to look at whether they dumb down the problem to fit their limited understanding or whether instead they try to expand their understanding to accommodate the problem. You will not be allowed to "simplify" away important details. If you can't understand enough of the question to answer it completely, and won't ask for explanation or clarification, then it will be appropriate to dismiss you as a crackpot.

 

[halleyscomet]

The thing is to keep it simple!!

Simplicity has never been a major problem area in your comments. Accuracy and relevance, however, have been consistent problems with the claims made in your posts.

For example, your "contribution" to a discussion of virgin birth legends that predate Christ by hundreds to thousands of years was to discuss the Christ narrative itself. You then threw Muhamad into the mix. You did all of this in an apparent effort to claim that the legends that were OLDER THAN Christ were somehow copies of the Christ narrative. That would be like defending the safety record of the Ford Pinto by discussing safety innovations in Ford's 2016 models.

No. The thing is to answer the question you're asked, at the appropriate level of sophistication. One way to tell whether someone is sincere is to look at whether they dumb down the problem to fit their limited understanding or whether instead they try to expand their understanding to accommodate the problem. You will not be allowed to "simplify" away important details. If you can't understand enough of the question to answer it completely, and won't ask for explanation or clarification, then it will be appropriate to dismiss you as a crackpot.

In this case, he's "simplified" the discussion by ignoring the arrow of time. He is literally trying to claim that legends that existed hundreds to thousands of years before the time period of Christ's alleged birth were somehow copies of the Christ narrative.

Apparently, Satan stole The Doctor's Tardis and used it for religious trolling.

 

[JayUtah]

Accuracy and relevance, however, have been consistent problems with the claims made in your posts.

And claiming relevance on the basis of "prophetic meaning" has certainly worn thin.

In this case, he's "simplified" the discussion by ignoring the arrow of time.

A distractionary pattern all too common in his arguments. If we point out something he got wrong, he simply turns to something else he got right, as if that somehow erases the error. If we point to the odious parts of his doctrines, he responds by pointing to the virtuous innocuous parts and says that our objection must be against those virtues.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Simplicity has never been a major problem area in your comments. Accuracy and relevance, however, have been consistent problems with the claims made in your posts.

For example, your "contribution" to a discussion of virgin birth legends that predate Christ by hundreds to thousands of years was to discuss the Christ narrative itself. You then threw Muhamad into the mix. You did all of this in an apparent effort to claim that the legends that were OLDER THAN Christ were somehow copies of the Christ narrative. That would be like defending the safety record of the Ford Pinto by discussing safety innovations in Ford's 2016 models.



In this case, he's "simplified" the discussion by ignoring the arrow of time. He is literally trying to claim that legends that existed hundreds to thousands of years before the time period of Christ's alleged birth were somehow copies of the Christ narrative.

Apparently, Satan stole The Doctor's Tardis and used it for religious trolling.

You come up with statements far related from the actual thread, and then want me to respond to issues not related.

So simply stated, regardless of all the Google search you are doing, is that the topic is the Torah, and the Psalms and the prophets, and the New Covenant.

So when we go to the beginning, Yahweh is there so everything must relate to the beginning, anything that does not fit into the beginning is plagiarized.

So what you say has relevance to the truth.
Now a time will come when all mythology will vanish in the light of the truth being presented.

This is in accordance with what is prophesied---Isaiah_45:23 By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.

You SEE my sole purpose here is to declare what is written prophetically so when the time comes there will be a record for reference.

So, all the mythology that refers to other virgins giving birth before Jesus are only myths, based on the actual event.

When Satan the deceiver is brought into the equation then there is a reason that counterfeit events will be fabricated to confuse the truth—very simple.

I seldom use the existence of Satan to illustrate the condition in the world, as man has the ability to choose.

You SEE, you cannot blame Satan if you lie!!

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Well yeah, IF you already accept Christianity as true...
But 'all similar traditions that were older are prophetic lies, and all similar traditions that came afterwards were the regular kind of lies, but this one data point is absolute truth, so just ignore how the stories have progressed throughout the ages' is some really poor reasoning and even poorer evidence.

 

[Border Reiver]

You come up with statements far related from the actual thread, and then want me to respond to issues not related.

The topic of this thread is your adherence to the mitzvot. However, since your answers generally bear only a slight resemblance to the questions asked of you we've asked other questions based on what you have actually written.

In short, you brought the issues up - you should actually answer the question.

So simply stated, regardless of all the Google search you are doing, is that the topic is the Torah, and the Psalms and the prophets, and the New Covenant.

Then why don't you answer the questions put to you on those topics, rather then what ever you wish had been asked?

So when we go to the beginning, Yahweh is there so everything must relate to the beginning, anything that does not fit into the beginning is plagiarized.

Something that has been plagiarized has been copied without attribution. Something that was written at an earlier date cannot be copied from something written later.

To make this clearer, let's say I have a body of text first written around 60 CE, let's call it the Book. If it is pointed out that parts of the Book are very similar to other texts that were written around 500 to 1,000 years earlier, then you cannot claim that the earlier texts are plagiarized from the Book.

Rather, it is the Book that plagiarized the already existing texts.

So what you say has relevance to the truth.

Now a time will come when all mythology will vanish in the light of the truth being presented.

You realize that this also includes the Yahweh mythology that you are defending with absolutely no skill?

This is in accordance with what is prophesied---Isaiah_45:23 By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.



You SEE my sole purpose here is to declare what is written prophetically so when the time comes there will be a record for reference.


So, all the mythology that refers to other virgins giving birth before Jesus are only myths, based on the actual event.

Given that the Bible was written after many of the other texts you need to show how a earlier text is a copy of what was written later.

Then you need to actually prove what you claim is true.

When Satan the deceiver is brought into the equation then there is a reason that counterfeit events will be fabricated to confuse the truth—very simple.

Your argument that earlier texts and legends are copies of the Scriptures written centuries later is "Satan did it?"

I seldom use the existence of Satan to illustrate the condition in the world, as man has the ability to choose.



You SEE, you cannot blame Satan if you lie!!

You can stop gas lighting now. Your argument has now moved from something supported only by a single book to something supported by the fan fiction derived from that book. It's weaker than a newborn.

Try again.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You SEE my sole purpose here is to declare what is written prophetically so when the time comes there will be a record for reference.

Seriously? Do you honestly believe that, if your dreamed-of apocalypse does finally materialise, that anyone is going to bother looking at this thread to check that you were right all along? Don't you think there might be other, more pressing, matters to attend to?
Dude, get over yourself.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Well yeah, IF you already accept Christianity as true...
But 'all similar traditions that were older are prophetic lies, and all similar traditions that came afterwards were the regular kind of lies, but this one data point is absolute truth, so just ignore how the stories have progressed throughout the ages' is some really poor reasoning and even poorer evidence.

You are totally correct in every way—so evidence is necessary to validate the truth, that is what I have been saying all the time—give the people evidence, the problem is that what will happen when the people reject the evidence?

Then again what sort of evidence do you have in mind that will convince you?

 

[Paul Bethke]

Seriously? Do you honestly believe that, if your dreamed-of apocalypse does finally materialise, that anyone is going to bother looking at this thread to check that you were right all along? Don't you think there might be other, more pressing, matters to attend to?
Dude, get over yourself.

There are many things that have been presented here, so that can be documented as a witness to all that has been stated, why must I create another site when the Forum will adequately suffice.

And will not the members of this Forum be so willing as to search out what has been presented.

And will not the arguments of the people on the Forum condemn them.

For one –what will people want to know about my stance on marriage—then they can search the Forum.

I believe that the Forum will be a means to proclaim the truth, and silence all my valued critics.

 

[Paul Bethke]

The topic of this thread is your adherence to the mitzvot. However, since your answers generally bear only a slight resemblance to the questions asked of you we've asked other questions based on what you have actually written.
In short, you brought the issues up - you should actually answer the question.
Then why don't you answer the questions put to you on those topics, rather then what ever you wish had been asked?
Something that has been plagiarized has been copied without attribution. Something that was written at an earlier date cannot be copied from something written later.

To make this clearer, let's say I have a body of text first written around 60 CE, let's call it the Book. If it is pointed out that parts of the Book are very similar to other texts that were written around 500 to 1,000 years earlier, then you cannot claim that the earlier texts are plagiarized from the Book.
Rather, it is the Book that plagiarized the already existing texts.
You realize that this also includes the Yahweh mythology that you are defending with absolutely no skill?
Given that the Bible was written after many of the other texts you need to show how a earlier text is a copy of what was written later.
Then you need to actually prove what you claim is true.
Your argument that earlier texts and legends are copies of the Scriptures written centuries later is "Satan did it?"
You can stop gas lighting now. Your argument has now moved from something supported only by a single book to something supported by the fan fiction derived from that book. It's weaker than a newborn.
Try again.

What must be considered is that although the Scriptures were not the first record to be written, they are the only record of the Creator and his dealings with humanity.

People prior to this were ignorant of creation. And construed how things came into being, accrediting much to imagination, thereby creating their own deities.

Now I am not opposed to any law in the Torah, every law given is of value to get an understanding.

A person must look at all the laws and consider where they can be applied.

What you and others fail to understand is that many laws apply to the people living in Israel at a time when there were many so called cultures and practices that Yahweh hated.

As a result, laws were given to prevent the Hebrews form imitating those customs.
(Deu 12:1 These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess—as long as you live in the land.
Deu 12:2 Destroy completely all the places on the high mountains and on the hills and under every spreading tree where the nations you are dispossessing worship their gods.
Deu 12:3 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places.
Deu 12:4 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way.

Many of the laws that are evident today supersede the structure of the Torah—
For instance hygiene, but there are many ignorant people who still do not apply the basic laws of Torah. So, there is an ongoing attempt to educate people.

The slaughtering of animals which imposes a health risk is still in practice.
So in every way people exceed the demands of Torah or are still outside the basic laws.

An attempt to contact the dead is still a custom that is still practiced with the many ritual practices involving ritual customs which are unlawful, even to the point of using body parts.

As I have stated, every law has significance.
So TODAY the first stage is to consider the marriage covenant and the food stipulation.
Other laws of the land can serve as a guide to lawful responsibility.

But when dealing with ignorant people, the Torah laws can produce a standard for living.

So, the Torah is a guide to making laws—but the very basic laws have been abolished by the world today, that being holy matrimony and justice in dealing with crime.

So again the Decalogue is the pivotal consideration for the FAITH.

 

[halleyscomet]

Then again what sort of evidence do you have in mind that will convince you?

A prophet who can actually utter a prophesy that comes TRUE would be a good start. Kill any grass lately?