new testament, matthew chapter 2

[John V]

I also want to point out the blatant LIE of you claiming that I introduced that passage, just sayin...
stupid fucking socks...

Here's the post:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-16992-po...#pid396689
Please show the post prior to this in which I mentioned the passage on the adulteress.

Dude, you agreed that those didn't support infallibility, then you claim it did.
You presented 2 separate statements that conflicted with your beliefs, which of course, makes you a liar...
We're done here...
.

The post to which I agreed (#96) did not quote me or refer to specific posts or passages. The last statement in the post which preceded it regarded the adulteress passage. Therefore, I was agreeing that the adulteress passage does not support infallibility, but rather addresses forgiveness etc. If you were referring to something else, you should have specified it. Absent that I have to assume you're referring to the preceding statement.

[catfish]

I made a statement to which you agreed.
"No, that doesn't support inerrancy nor infallibility. It supports forgiveness, righteous judgement and calling out the scribes, Moses and Pharisees on their bullshit lies."

You agreed to that...

Even if you discard whichever pasage you may be confused about, the second part of that statement is quite clear. Condensed it's "calling them out on their lies".
Since you agree with that, "in-fucking-fallible" is tossed, PERIOD. Lies do NOT equal truth and unless you wish to debate that, I'mma pretty dag gummed sure we're dun here....

So please, I would love to see you try to worm you way out of that. I suspect you'll deny it and claim you were speaking about some verse that doesn't matter and claim that you weren't addressing the rest of my statement, but that's what a Poe sock-puppet does, huh?

So, should I expect denial and deflection? Or should I expect that you'll call evil good and good evil? Or will you simply fade away from this thread?

.

[justin]

[quote='justin' pid='396389' dateline='1360034962']

no i didn`t disagree with joseph. i would`ve keep away from those nut cases also. but he didn`t stay in eygpt he was on his way to jerusaluem( not sure if i spelled that right?) then god came to him again and said change of plans herods son took over and he`s bad too so go to nazerath.

Let's look at what is actually written:
Mt2:
19 Now when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the young Child’s life are dead.” 21 Then he arose, took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.

22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. 23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

i mean i undertook the impression that god was a secret informant that wasn`t gonna do anything but just give joseph some tips here and there.

What gave you that impression? verse 23 points to the full fillment of prophesy rather than, the tip giving business. God's 'tips' always push in the direction of His will.

my standards for a god like i said were higher and from the perception people have from the bible that i have dealt with. so with that said i was trying to get some a rational outside perspective to see if there was a better defense for this,as my opinion, bad cia movie.

...based on your standards of God. Or rather your personal idea of God. One that seems to be based in personal feeling.

lol and what`s up with all those innocent children that herod ordered to death? like i said i found myself asking "wtf?" alot.

Herod knew he was at the end of his life and wanted his legacy to continue on (look up Herod the greats accomplishments) He was setting up a 1000 year dynasty, and did not want some outside king to tear down what he spent a life time building.

first: ok so are you saying that satan is just as powerful or more powerful than god?

After creation God put man incharge of this world. At the fall of man Man gave control over to satan. At the time of Christ's physical birth (till his death) satan ruled this realm and had heavy influence over the hearts and mind of man. (Some sects of Christianity still believe he has this power over man.)

before anything else is`nt jesus god?

The Name "Jesus" refers to the Physical incarnation of God the son, and The Physical aspect of of Jesus had a begining and an end.

Even so yes. Jesus was God the Son.

oh ok so herod didn`t send the wise men? he was mad cause they were going to worship someone else? then why if god was fond of sendin g them messages did he not tell them where jesus was so they didn`t get confused and start this whole mess.

It's only a mess if your looking to control the hearts and minds of men.

i mean children died because of this decision to ignore the results that he knew would come from the mistake so what`s up with that?

'Death' is not the end for God. It is only the beginning of another phase of life. as such is not a crime/sin.

third; 4;31 deuteronomy
31 (for the Lord your God is a merciful God), He will not forsake you nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers which He swore to them.
This is a long way from the doctrine that says God is All Merciful, or is always bound to show mercy. For the same Bible speaks of the Wrath of God. If you read this passage contextually it simply says God is A merciful God. Meaning a God who shows Mercy. (But is not limited to this quality)

for mercy and matthew 5;44 tells to model after him to love your enemy.

44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,

This is not even close to the doctrine of omni benevolence you were leaning on.

fourth: an earthly realm? like the physical realm? what did he do that wasn`t of this realm when he was here? this doesn`t seem to make any sense.

John 18:35 "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" 36Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But for now my kingdom is not from here."

Christ makes several other references of this before his death when people want to elevate him to an earthly king.

I just saw this reply. Will reply when i an sit at a computer instead of a phone.

[John V]

I made a statement to which you agreed.
"No, that doesn't support inerrancy nor infallibility. It supports forgiveness, righteous judgement and calling out the scribes, Moses and Pharisees on their bullshit lies."

Yes, and as already noted, I reasonably concluded that the "that" above referred to the adulteress passage.

However, siince you claim you intended otherwise, I retract my agreement.

Now we're back to the passages I provided which very clearly show the notion of infallibility.

[catfish]

Wait, you are retracting agreement to both statements?
Did the scribes, Parisees and Moses lie or not? Did you lie or not? Which is it? Did you see what just happened to your theory there?
.

[John V]

I see that you're trying to keep up the he said/she said routine because the passages I referenced refute your position. Heck, I retract all commentary - the passages stand on their own.

[fr0d0]

I see that you're trying to keep up the he said/she said routine because the passages I referenced refute your position. Heck, I retract all commentary - the passages stand on their own.

+1

[catfish]

Deflection + denial = -1
.

[Minimalist]

I don't give a flying fuck who is a "true xtian." In my view any asshole who falls for the bullshit story of a dead jew coming back to life is a fucking xtian. I see no reason to dissect them on the basis of absurd theological questions.

For that matter, anyone who thinks allah spoke to mohammad is a muslim or anyone who thinks Joseph Smith found some magic beans - oh wait, that was "Jack" - I mean golden tablets is a fucking mormon.

I regard all theists, essentially, as superstitious twits.

[fr0d0]

Get back in your hole and keep digging old timer