My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[Pat Mustard]

Answer the questions. jesus was not around at the time of Leviticus. The blood can't symbolize something they haven't perceived yet.

Or are you opting for the dodge?

God had already told about the Redeemer who would come at a later time. He mentioned it in Genesis several times. And Job, which was written a little after the flood, says, "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in my flesh, I shall see God." David also mentions Him, and he lived around 1000 BC. And also certain prophets, especially Isaiah, give even a more detailed description of the coming Messiah. Even the magi knew by their reasonings that Christ was to be born, and when, and where. It was all written. This wasn't just something that happened as a surprise. Now of course they knew much less about Him in the Levitical times, but they still knew of him.

So you've basicly decided to rewrite the bible to make the bits that don't fit your worldview look as if they do*. What's the point in us debating a person who is just going to change his source every time it's shown to be wrong?

*Absolutely none of the jewish portions of the bible predict Jesus. Firstly, the jewish messiah was going to be a second David an earthly king who would remake Judah into a paradise right here on earth. Secondly most of the "prophesies" were misinterpreted to give Jesus a legitimacy. For example the whole "Jewus was born of a virgin to fulfil prophesy" is bullshit because the original prophesy referred to a woman who wasn't a virgin (she was alrady pregnan) and who had died 700 years earlier. The original propesy said "before this young woman who is clearly pregnant gives birth, yhwh will drive the invading Assyrians from the land of Judah and preserve your kingdom" (I'm leaving aside the fact that the original prophesy was post hoc for now). None of this has anything to do with Jesus yet christers constantly claim that it's proof of his divine nature.

---

Well if it says it is and it isn't, then it is lying. If it's lying then none of it should be believed. But since it's hard to know whether or not that particular claim is a lie, the only thing we can really do is look at the rest of it and see if anything in there is absolutely known to be a lie. If there is an indisputably known lie in it, then we know it can't be the revealed word of God, because it says that God cannot lie.

I see you're now retconning Star Trek 4 into the bible. Good for you, about time christers adopted some good fiction.

And I'll leave aside the she sheer arrogance and pride you display in your hectoring us over not accepting your assertions even though you are incapable of showing supporting evidence.