(February 4, 2016 at 6:21 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: That isn't what Deuteronomy 23:18 says you lying sack of shit. Look it up.  I don't care what the website is because you're quoting a Bible verse.  Look it up, fucking retard.

this is the part where I get to take my baseball bat of righteousness to your face and swing for the fences...

(Let's start by setting up the pitch..)
do you mean to tell me that out of that WHOLE response I did your only grievance/inconsistency you found was the bible verses that seem to be different on the Jewish Law web site and what your translation reads?

Now out of all of that fact checking I did to bring you a 1000 word essay on how and why you are wrong, the same essay that you could find no fault in, you really think I over looked the passages you pointed out?

Let's look up the verse shall we:


בּוֹא bow' =Thou shalt not bring
אֶתְנַן [i]'ethnan =the hire
זָנָה zanah = of a whore

[/i]Theirs that word you've allowed to mess you up, Not whore but "Zanah", so again the non fool asks what is the definition of this is a strange word. (Or backs into this line of reasoning if they did not use a lexicon. Meaning you know the bible was not written in English, Nor was the word whore and your originally used, Matter of fact how can you be certain of its representation of what is truly being communicated? Yet the fool charges forward!!)

(the pitch)

So we seek the definition.
Seemingly, your defination is limited to the english, meaning prostitute. the problem? While the word Zanah can mean prostitute, as you see here it's primary meaning is to commit adultery, or fornicator, it final understanding is that of a prostitute. the word is not limited to sex for money being the point. In otherwords all women who had sex outside of marriage are considered 'Zanah.'
Zanah
זָנָה zânâh, zaw-naw'; a primitive root [highly fed and therefore wanton]; to commit adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple fornication, rarely of involuntary ravishment); figuratively, to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah):—(cause to) commit fornication, × continually, × great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be, play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring, whorish.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2181&t=KJV


In other words a Zanah was a female fornicator formally paid or unpaid. which is not much different than how whore can be used in english.

(the Swing)

So again back to rule number 69 in this particular list:

Quote:That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18)

(The crack of the bat)

Quote:"their shall be no Harlot in Israel"

is what was taken from deut 23:18. you Can't deny that as I pasted the Hebrew and english that says this VERY thing.

then you see a ";" (Meaning they are going to give a further translation or break down of this law.)

then they out line or define what a harlot/whore/Zanah is or how one is judged that way when they say:

Quote:that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage

(Man that ball is sailing out of here!!!)
Now I know you like being as stupid as possible so your simple man's arguments work with little to no opposition, but the problem here in the real world is.. when speaking of an actual law or cultures beliefs their is always a massive paper trail that defines, translates and explains what it is a people believes.

(It's going...)
Now I know I let you people have slack in calling me a liar, the reason being I was giving you enough slack to hang yourselves/enough time to fully commit to your argument as i could, so when I close the door/show you how and why you are wrong, it will make you look as foolish as possible. (not because you are ignorant/I don't make fun of ignorant. You are foolish/stupid because you don't know, but insist that you do, and refuse to check yourself and understanding.. then argue about it when shown you are wrong)

(go-innng)
You may want to argue with me, my translation, and try and prop up your reading of the bible or any number of other foolish/trivial things.. But bottom line... Law #69 that defines what a Zanah is, is not up for debate. why? because no matter how or what you think, how you read your bible, or intrepret this Deut 23.. This law for the Hebrew people has been interpreted and set in figurative stone by the Hebrew people themselves and is to read EXACTLY how I cut and pasted it to read for THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!!!
(gone!!!)
Who are you to tell the Jews they are not reading their bibles correctly?

(Read as third 1940's person commentator for fun)
Home run! Home RRUUUUUNNNNN!!!! Drich knocks the douche virus out of the park!!! If he's (DV short for douche virus) is smart, he will concede or just say nothing, but we know the douche virus thinks he's smarter that Drich even when Drich is just cutting and pasting from 2000 year old book of Jewish law! It seems The DV, and his fellow/like minded "thinkers" (irony abounds) don't quite get that this particular law was in place 1000 years before Christ walked the earth, and to argue this point is beyond just stupid it show a completely lack of any knowledge what so eve-a!! It hard to see where the douche virus landed after that home run smack, but rest assured, where ever he landed, I'm sure he is getting up and brushing himself off and headed back to this stadium!!

:Roflol:
Oh, douche Virus (and supporting thinker friends who said I lied) I know you think you know better, but the truth is you don't! before another one of you gets his teethed kicked in again, i ask you to look up the the 613 Mitzots (Rambam's they are the oldest and of the 2000 year old variety I cut and pasted from here) Or better yet look up: Chafetz Chayim's Concise Book of Mitzvot as it pairs a specific law with it's command.

The problem you guys have???
 you all put WAYYYYY Too much Faith in your anti God bloggers and anti-theologians. They are shills and shadows of who they make themselves out to be. Just because some one like carrier or that other guy... what's his names... says something against the bible or the religion in general, doesn't make it true. where is all of this 'independant thought you guys keep talking about? From my POV you all are the sheep and instead of God you follow people like.. that one atheist guy with the hair problem..

If you people spent 1/2 the faith you had in I-dots (yes I know how idiot is spelled, it an "acurn") like Dawkins or carrier, God would open your eyes, so that you may see Him and have the proof you need.

The proof I need of what, that he exists and shares your opinions?  Why would that matter to me..or to anyone? I'd think he was a clown, an imposter, just as I think of you in the here and now.....

.....so, what would change?

(February 4, 2016 at 11:31 pm)loganonekenobi Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 1:15 pm)Drich Wrote: So, instead of learning ANYTHING new, you default to what you came into the conversation with? Way to keep an open mind their spock.
(Yes I know your avatar is Sarack)

you've failed to provide anything that hasn't already been said by every other christian trying to convert the world.

Really? so then why has it taken you guy over 20 pages of dialog to figure out that 'morality' is not can not be used as a way to measure 'good behaivor?"

Quote:  you are over complicating the moral question.  each situation is a case by case and it is simple.  you see a situation in which  A) you have a choice to make  B) you have the power to make a difference and C) it affects some one else then you ask your self "how would i want to be treated in this situation?".  After that you follow that guide.  No moment is the same as the last or the next and so no absolute morals or choices exist.  Reality is not the past or the future it is that moment.  If it is anymore complicated than that then all you are doing is just making one more case of why we should "be christian".  instead of challenging us and yourself to be better people in this world.

And appearently you still havn't figured it out.
If you are not willing to look at the past then how can you know if you are setting yourself up to make the same mistakes again?

Quote:I'll post a question to you.  given the guide lines i just put up can you give me a situation where this simple plan would not work? remember to work in this time frame that we live in.

In the present.
We live in a society dependent on slaves.
We slaughter babies by the billions
We are in the middle of a holy war, that only chance of winning is genocide. (As we will never win hearts and minds.)

So my turn. tell me where your philosphy could work. If you say the present then first resolve the problems i presented.

(February 4, 2016 at 11:36 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: You know that makes you an asshole, when you deliberately try to push peoples' psychological buttons in order to cause them distress and/or make them react angrily, right? And I don't know what "button" you think you pushed. I was simply trying to set you straight about how prisoners (typically) see the Warden. You're wrong about it. Sorry, but you are.

"the warden" is a term used to describe ultimate authority. Yes your right that not every person hates the man who holds that job, the idea or title that awards ultimate authority of one human to another is indeed immoral by every standard in pop morality except this one. Sorry if you can't figure out that this is tantamount to modern/regulated chattle slavery, but ultimatly that is not my problem. If the need for you to be right/expert, has you over look the same if not similar conditions 19th century slaves endured, then their is nothing I can say as you so expertly pulled your 'i was in prison card.'

(February 4, 2016 at 4:29 pm)Drich Wrote: While I'm sure your an expert on what goes one behind closed cell room doors.. at night.. But, unless you spent time in a 23 hour lock down for 20 years I'm going to have to ask you to put your prison card back in your... where ever they make you keep it. the analogy I used was place on a shelf above your pay grade.

Quote:They made us pin our ID to our shirt with a clip, if that's what you mean...

prison card as in race card.. the 'moral authority' to dominate a conversation because somehow your experience dictates the national experience.

Quote:but it's not, unfortunately. I did spend a significant amount of time in 23-hour lockdown, back in the first couple of years in jail when they were trying to force me to plead guilty to a crime of which I was innocent, but I had only a couple of months in the Hole during my actual prison stay, following a fight in which I hurt a guy pretty badly after he tried to sexually assault me. They actually tried to charge me with a new crime, but the local DA dismissed the charges as soon as they hit her desk because the guy whose skull I split was a known serial rapist.

what was his brand? Trix or fruit loops?

Quote:As to the analogy thing, I'm amazed--truly--at your degree of arrogance.

How is my arrogance any different than your own? do you really think that the whole prison system be served up by you meager experience?

I'm speaking to something bigger than you or my experience. something that has been documented and studied despite your inability to recognize it in your specific situation. which makes me wonder if you didn't just spend a few months in county jail...

Quote: Your analogy was perfectly clear and obvious to all of us: you think that people who are under the control of an "Ultimate Authority" will automatically chafe against that authority, and I explained (or tried to explain) to you that such is not the case, even with prisoners.

That was not the analogy.. That's your strawman, which is why I dismissed you and what you said in the last post. I out line a very real situation sub set in a prison that has a person feeling miss treated or wrongfully treated/specifically does not agree with the punishment.

Quote:That's just not true, either. Guys who get violations know when they're "good for it", as they say, and they do their time when they are caught infracting the rules-- as a prison law clerk (jailhouse lawyer), I dealt every single day with guys accused of Conduct Violations, and I learned that 99% of prisoners readily admit when they have broken the rules and are ready to accept the consequences of their actions. It's a movie trope which says all prisoners claim to be innocent; in reality, the opposite is true, and guys who claim to be innocent are mocked openly by other prisoners, even though statistically even the federal government admits that 1 in 50 are wrongfully convicted, and as many as 1 in 10 are incarcerated on charges more severe than their actual actions deserved.

again not the situation I laid out is it?
I was told that the adminstration knows certain trouble makers with in the population,they activly seek to violate them to remove them so they can work in peace. this specifically means pulling a guy even if he may have 'broken a soft or unspoken rule'. you are right those who openly violate the rules are generally good for it... however what of those who feel they are being targeted?

Quote:I have no doubt that there are some guys your dad sent to the Hole ("lockdown" means sent to your normal cell with the doors locked; the Hole is a special set of punishment cells, and are what you were referencing, above) who were unregenerate and resented being punished for anything they did, but it's just not the way things were for most of us unless the penalties were overly harsh without cause or the rules were arbitrarily and capriciously applied.

Your frequent references to some sort of abuse you seem to assume I suffered behind bars is a bit disconcerting, to me... I think you have some sort of male rape fascination. You should probably seek help for that.

yeah I'll get right on that.

(February 5, 2016 at 4:17 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 6:21 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: That isn't what Deuteronomy 23:18 says you lying sack of shit. Look it up.  I don't care what the website is because you're quoting a Bible verse.  Look it up, fucking retard.

this is the part where I get to take my baseball bat of righteousness to your face and swing for the fences...

(Let's start by setting up the pitch..)
do you mean to tell me that out of that WHOLE response I did your only grievance/inconsistency you found was the bible verses that seem to be different on the Jewish Law web site and what your translation reads?

Now out of all of that fact checking I did to bring you a 1000 word essay on how and why you are wrong, the same essay that you could find no fault in, you really think I over looked the passages you pointed out?

Let's look up the verse shall we:


בּוֹא bow' =Thou shalt not bring
אֶתְנַן [i]'ethnan =the hire
זָנָה zanah = of a whore

[/i]Theirs that word you've allowed to mess you up, Not whore but "Zanah", so again the non fool asks what is the definition of this is a strange word. (Or backs into this line of reasoning if they did not use a lexicon. Meaning you know the bible was not written in English, Nor was the word whore and your originally used, Matter of fact how can you be certain of its representation of what is truly being communicated? Yet the fool charges forward!!)

(the pitch)

So we seek the definition.
Seemingly, your defination is limited to the english, meaning prostitute. the problem? While the word Zanah can mean prostitute, as you see here it's primary meaning is to commit adultery, or fornicator, it final understanding is that of a prostitute. the word is not limited to sex for money being the point. In otherwords all women who had sex outside of marriage are considered 'Zanah.'
Zanah
זָנָה zânâh, zaw-naw'; a primitive root [highly fed and therefore wanton]; to commit adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple fornication, rarely of involuntary ravishment); figuratively, to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah):—(cause to) commit fornication, × continually, × great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be, play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring, whorish.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2181&t=KJV


In other words a Zanah was a female fornicator formally paid or unpaid. which is not much different than how whore can be used in english.

(the Swing)

So again back to rule number 69 in this particular list:

Quote:That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18)

(The crack of the bat)

Quote:"their shall be no Harlot in Israel"

is what was taken from deut 23:18. you Can't deny that as I pasted the Hebrew and english that says this VERY thing.

then you see a ";" (Meaning they are going to give a further translation or break down of this law.)

then they out line or define what a harlot/whore/Zanah is or how one is judged that way when they say:

Quote:that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage

(Man that ball is sailing out of here!!!)
Now I know you like being as stupid as possible so your simple man's arguments work with little to no opposition, but the problem here in the real world is.. when speaking of an actual law or cultures beliefs their is always a massive paper trail that defines, translates and explains what it is a people believes.

(It's going...)
Now I know I let you people have slack in calling me a liar, the reason being I was giving you enough slack to hang yourselves/enough time to fully commit to your argument as i could, so when I close the door/show you how and why you are wrong, it will make you look as foolish as possible. (not because you are ignorant/I don't make fun of ignorant. You are foolish/stupid because you don't know, but insist that you do, and refuse to check yourself and understanding.. then argue about it when shown you are wrong)

(go-innng)
You may want to argue with me, my translation, and try and prop up your reading of the bible or any number of other foolish/trivial things.. But bottom line... Law #69 that defines what a Zanah is, is not up for debate. why? because no matter how or what you think, how you read your bible, or intrepret this Deut 23.. This law for the Hebrew people has been interpreted and set in figurative stone by the Hebrew people themselves and is to read EXACTLY how I cut and pasted it to read for THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!!!
(gone!!!)
Who are you to tell the Jews they are not reading their bibles correctly?

(Read as third 1940's person commentator for fun)
Home run! Home RRUUUUUNNNNN!!!! Drich knocks the douche virus out of the park!!! If he's (DV short for douche virus) is smart, he will concede or just say nothing, but we know the douche virus thinks he's smarter that Drich even when Drich is just cutting and pasting from 2000 year old book of Jewish law! It seems The DV, and his fellow/like minded "thinkers" (irony abounds) don't quite get that this particular law was in place 1000 years before Christ walked the earth, and to argue this point is beyond just stupid it show a completely lack of any knowledge what so eve-a!! It hard to see where the douche virus landed after that home run smack, but rest assured, where ever he landed, I'm sure he is getting up and brushing himself off and headed back to this stadium!!

:Roflol:
Oh, douche Virus (and supporting thinker friends who said I lied) I know you think you know better, but the truth is you don't! before another one of you gets his teethed kicked in again, i ask you to look up the the 613 Mitzots (Rambam's they are the oldest and of the 2000 year old variety I cut and pasted from here) Or better yet look up: Chafetz Chayim's Concise Book of Mitzvot as it pairs a specific law with it's command.

The problem you guys have???
 you all put WAYYYYY Too much Faith in your anti God bloggers and anti-theologians. They are shills and shadows of who they make themselves out to be. Just because some one like carrier or that other guy... what's his names... says something against the bible or the religion in general, doesn't make it true. where is all of this 'independant thought you guys keep talking about? From my POV you all are the sheep and instead of God you follow people like.. that one atheist guy with the hair problem..

If you people spent 1/2 the faith you had in I-dots (yes I know how idiot is spelled, it an "acurn") like Dawkins or carrier, God would open your eyes, so that you may see Him and have the proof you need.

do you mean to tell me that out of that WHOLE response I did your only grievance/inconsistency you found was the bible verses that seem to be different on the Jewish Law web site and what your translation reads?

No, lol. I just point out that you are wrong and/or a liar and I find that to be sufficient for defeating you rather soundly.

Who are you to tell the Jews they are not reading their bibles correctly?

LOL.

Yeah, Jesus CLEARLY satisfies the "prophecies" about the messiah. Therefore a Jewish scholar will obviously accept him as the messiah, right? Oh wait, it's YOU who is telling the Jews they're not reading the Bible properly.


As for your grandslam rebuttal... lol.


Zanah can mean prostitute, as you see here it's primary meaning is to commit adultery, or fornicator, it final understanding is that of a prostitute. the word is not limited to sex for money being the point. In otherwords all women who had sex outside of marriage are considered 'Zanah.'

The entire point of Deuteronomy 23:18 is about whore money. So why would you say they are talking about fornication for free? I don't care what your website says, and IF you want to say that modern day Jews are the authority on the Old Testament THEN you cannot say Jesus was their messiah.

Fucking owned.

(February 5, 2016 at 12:14 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: No but I do need you to stop using the same laughing emote after three years. You should have the self-awareness to know how it makes you look by now. I deleted it and the insulting word salad that offered no information pertinent to our conversation. If you disagree about that decision I will welcome any valid justification for the presence of either. Otherwise; you're a grown man. Time to grow up. Pressing on.

Oh, ralphie you scamp! your deletion of my 'word salad' and emotes is justification and validation enough! Nothing says "you got me, and it hurts" more than I'm going to have to delete your work, because I don't feel comfortable working around it!

Quote:Does this mean you are also both right and wrong or are you one of the few lucky enough to be totally in the right? If so why do you have that special honor when there are many others who have "right/wrong" views who put in more time and study?

What 'it' means, is like everyone else.. I am right enough to stand before Christ, and be judged. Probably a little more critically because I have taken the mantel of teacher.

As far as being right or Wrong... All I can say is I left absolutely nothing on the table. I feel i have used everything these last 20+ years to come to the truth I now have, and i work just as hard if not harder look at what I know and crossing it with everything I have been provided. One of the indicators I believe I have that some others may not... I feel I can reconcile the whole bible. apply it in such away as to answer any question given and leave no contradiction. Or rather in my 4 or 5 years here I haven't come across a question or conflict I could not resolve. does that mean every answer is right? no. It just means a have a basic enough grasp of the bible to navigate it without conflicting error. (so far)

Quote:So we're *all* going to heaven?

we all no.. Only those in whom Christ judges a follower.. I don't have a copy of the lambs book of life, but I'm almost willing to bet the farm those who hate God in this life will not be on that list.

Quote: Of course theres an "unless" isn't there Drich. That would be unless we break the rules.

But again, for the follower of Christ their is no rules...
The rules are only to show you are not born a follower of Christ, and is only used to judge those who do not follow Christ.

Quote:The thing about the rules, Christian morality if you will, is every Christian has a different interpretation of them.

again, I point back to what Paul and Jesus said: We are Completely free from the law unless we can not handel said freedom, then we are free to bind ourselves any way we like, and God will hold us to it. (use the rules we create, to judge us.) that is one of the reason I am pointing out the pit falls of pop morality in and out of the church.
For example We say killing babies is wrong, and 'good people' such as yourself judge God as unjust/immoral for killing what maybe 20,000 babies ever???

Then in the same breath you 'good people' will defend abortion.

Really?!?!?
What is abortion if not killing babies? How many have we killed since Roe-v- wade? 1.5 Billion!

Now looking back at how Jesus Slammed hypocritical pharisees of his day... what do you think his reaction would be to modern day pharisees?

Quote:Even within the same denominations. Its almost universally agreed murder is wrong but even that has an unless attached to it by some people. 

which again has been apart of the plan since the start of the church.

Quote:Let me give you a basic example you can relate to because its based on your views; If a Christian homosexual honestly interpreted Sodom to mean rape was wrong rather than homosexuality is he going to hell? If he is thats important. Because it means ignorance is no excuse. 

This is all very easily reconciled with the parable of the talents..
are you familiar?
Brief over view:
Wealthy land owner puts 3 servants/slaves in charge of a portion of money 'talent'=years wage for most.
Each was given to his ability.
The first slave got 5 talents
the 2nd got 3 talents
The 3rd got 1 talent.

Now The first two both invested and doubled what they were given. the third buried his talent because he did not want to loose it.

The master returned and commended the first 2 and they were rewarded and the 3rd was punished for not working with what God gave him.

Why?
Because we are all responsible to what God has entrusted us to have. This means money, skill, time, and yes mental capacity/understanding of the bible.

Now to apply this to your sodom guy, if God has only seen fit to give him limited understanding of him and his theology while incomplete by some standards, If was used to the best of his ability, Christ will judge this man based on what was made available to him rather than some impossible church/man made standard/morality.

Again the gospel according to the bible transcends 'morality' or the rules. Even so if all we can understand is life or righteousness by the rules we make then it is to those rules we are held. "What ever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and what ever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Meaning for a person who can only be catholic then investing all 5 talents means being all out catholic. The same is true for the methodist or fill in the blank... This means for your gay guy if he is 5 talents in, rocking his 'partners socks off and staying away from prostitutes' then that is the standard in which he will be judged.

Look how I answered your first question.. I instinctively gave you an answer that puts me in a position to have used all that God gave me to come up with and share this message. Why? Because that knowledge is what we are judged by, not some stupid standard some man who wheres a funny hat makes... unles again that standard is all you can reason.

However, make no mistake God is no fool, in Hebrews 4:12 we are told The word of God (The word is another name for Jesus, we see this in John 1:1) is like a double edged sword in that he cuts our nature down very cleanly and thinly making all of our hearts intentions and personal thoughts transparent and known, and it is to those inner thoughts we will be judged, not what we pretend to know/dont know.

Quote:You do get the relevance of that to the discussion, right? Because if thats the case from your standpoint alot of people have had their Jesus Christ get out of jail free card revoked and are on their way to one hell of a barbecue. 

Again What we bind on earth/What laws we make will be bound/laws we are judged by in Heaven. What we loose on earth/Freedom from said laws, will be loosed in Heaven, meaning will not be held against us.

Quote:So no. Not a strawman. Nothing you've said has contradicted what I deemed some of your views to be.

Really? what if I did not answer the questions the way you were so sure i had to answer?

Quote: You may think other Christians are in the right to some degree but you have clearly demonstrated over the years that you think your interpretation is the most right.

Right is a word I am not able to use/judge.. Maybe a better word is complete. My interpretation is more complete/Better aligned with Scripture than alot of the atheist held views presented on this web site.

Quote:Thats important because obviously there has to be a line. A line where a Christian gets it more wrong than right. If thats possible what does that say about the communication skills of an omnipotent being?

Quote:Yes, I do like apples. I dislike mediocrity, stop trying to be insulting. You're not good at it.

Yeah, I know.. like a level 10 out of 10 insult is calling someone stupid... why? because I'm not looking to hurt feelings for the sake of hurting feelings. I am looking to help you put you pride back into check, so we like this last post demonstrates can get back to asking and answering real questions... So everything negitive i do say is founded on a specific behaivor i can identify and justify..

The "apples" thing is me just having fun.

So How you like deem apples?

(February 5, 2016 at 5:14 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(February 5, 2016 at 4:17 pm)Drich Wrote: this is the part where I get to take my baseball bat of righteousness to your face and swing for the fences...

(Let's start by setting up the pitch..)
do you mean to tell me that out of that WHOLE response I did your only grievance/inconsistency you found was the bible verses that seem to be different on the Jewish Law web site and what your translation reads?

Now out of all of that fact checking I did to bring you a 1000 word essay on how and why you are wrong, the same essay that you could find no fault in, you really think I over looked the passages you pointed out?

Let's look up the verse shall we:

.
.
.

do you mean to tell me that out of that WHOLE response I did your only grievance/inconsistency you found was the bible verses that seem to be different on the Jewish Law web site and what your translation reads?

No, lol. I just point out that you are wrong and/or a liar and I find that to be sufficient for defeating you rather soundly.

Who are you to tell the Jews they are not reading their bibles correctly?

LOL.

Yeah, Jesus CLEARLY satisfies the "prophecies" about the messiah.  Therefore a Jewish scholar will obviously accept him as the messiah, right? Oh wait, it's YOU who is telling the Jews they're not reading the Bible properly.


As for your grandslam rebuttal... lol.


Zanah can mean prostitute, as you see here it's primary meaning is to commit adultery, or fornicator, it final understanding is that of a prostitute. the word is not limited to sex for money being the point. In otherwords all women who had sex outside of marriage are considered 'Zanah.'

The entire point of Deuteronomy 23:18 is about whore money.  So why would you say they are talking about fornication for free?  I don't care what your website says, and IF you want to say that modern day Jews are the authority on the Old Testament THEN you cannot say Jesus was their messiah.

Fucking owned.

The following emoti line up best explains my expressions as I read each point
       

To which i ask Are you are still so stupid as to argue a 2000 year old JEWISH Reading of the Law? Really? You know how to read the Jewish law better than the Jews?

If anyone was holding out any hope for you to not being blindingly willfully stupid and suborn.. you just crushed them.


Let's turn the tables just so you can see how stupid you really are.

Imagine a 'scientific' understanding or principle so old and so absolute it was known to be true for over 2000 years. Not only that this principle is the basis of three major branches of science that have lead and developed to other things that are just as rock solid.

Now Imagine I come in with little to no real understanding of this 'science' just my belief in God or rather what god is supposed to be. then lets say i question the known interpretation of this science because it does not fit my God/world view.

So politely you point out that this science is over my head and give me a simplified version of it and challenge me to look it up.

Of course I don't and I call you stupid and your explanation stupid because I am just stubbornly holding on to my understanding based on my own 'feelings.'

Next you show me the actual source material and the proof that this principle is over 2000 years old and you leave all sorts of reference material telling me I am wrong...

but I stubbornly and without logic or reason I hold on to my pride and continuly bad mouth and blast a 2000 year old scientific truth that is beyond question at this point in history.

What would you then say about me and what I am believing just on faith?

Do you see how stupid it is to argue against an absolute?

We can see how stupid it is to wait for you to come up with a competent argument from analogy.  There's an absolute for you.  

You've done nothing in this comment above but assert your tradition.  That's not very compelling. No one doubts that your tradition exists, we doubt that your tradition accurately reflects reality.

He literally ignored everything I said. Tactical move on his part, actually.

(February 5, 2016 at 7:50 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: He literally ignored everything I said.  Tactical move on his part, actually.

I'm still trying to come to terms with how a person can be so distant from reality that they think they know more about the nature of prisoners than someone who spent seven years (plus two in jail) in the system. Now that's arroga confidence!