Kosh

It is a common misconception of evangelizing
Xians to assume that their prey have not read
the Bible. IN reality, many of us heathens here
have not only read the bible, but have been
Christians (myself included) and have since
been enlightened by truth and research to realize
what a load of crap the Bible really is.

Did you think I hadn't read that passage from
luke? I had. And I read it again. And it still
stands as simple manipulation. The logic isn't
even sound. Let's consider that you have an entire
religion which hinges upon the resurrection of
Jesus and the witnesses who say him. You will argue
that the people who founded the religion wouldn't
have believed unless they had actually seen
Jesus resurrected.

And yet you come here and quote to us a passage
from Jesus himself saying that even DEAD MEN
rising from the dead are not enough to convince
the unsaved.

Moronic.

Go to Sunday School.

Hondo

Kosh

Thanks for one of the best laughs I've had in recent memory. Your response to davidH was brilliant!

diana

Originally posted by Paradisedreams2:
ROFL!!!!!! Christ WAS blind lol! That IS the whole point.

How can it be speaking of someone other then Him? The sign of the messiah was to open the eyes of the blind etc. Even Christ said, "Go report what you've seen, the blind see, etc".

CHRIST WAS BLINDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.

I don't get it. Even after reading the entire thread to this point (where I'm now posting), I still don't get it. Please be kind enough to simply develop your vocabulary to a point where you can effectively communicate your ideas without appeal to smileys and attempted voice inflection to get some nuance across. Thank you.

I see this as an awesome paradox. But it is a "real" stumper for the christian who says he was not. If the "Sword" (in zechariah)

"Awake of Sword AGAINST my shepherd against Him who is CLOSE TO ME" speaks of Christ because as As Judgement proceded into the midst among the disciples to strike Him, the verse in the old testament is referenced in the footnote

The footnotes were put there by...whom? People who were translating something into English and wanted to see a correlation to OT "prophesy" whereever possible?

(Objection. Leading the witness.--Sustained.)

Funny how people read Nostradamus and find how he "predicted" events, but this is only "discovered" after they have transpired, and one must admit in reading the quatrains in question that they could have been predicting many things, and don't necessarily allude to the thing they've just been connected with.

To be honest, PD2, this makes no fucking sense. Please...just say what you mean. Is that too much to ask?

So it goes like this... Strike the shepherd (still in Zech.) and the sheep will scatter. This footnote is seen at the time the disciples FLED.

Again, no problem after the fact looking at something vague written with no time-line and no specific references to connect it to the event in question and CLAIM there's a connection.

Is there someplace the connection to "I will turn my hand against the little ones" (the end of verse 7, which you quoted to this point and stopped) is referenced, praytell?

To continue, we obviously have a "prediction" that two-thirds of "the land" will perish. When did this happen?

Or do you get to pick and choose which "prophesies" were real and which were, shall we say, inserted only to mislead the unfaithful?

HE who is NOT WITH ME IS AGAINST ME. This is a subtle clue as to who its speaking of. Gods Sword (His words) are AGAINST CHRIST.

Thus the picture in (Zech) To strike His Shepherd. The Sword is awaken against HIS SHEPHERD.

A divided its Kingdom cannot stand. Thus hath an end.

What?

Please tell me English is not your first language. It's easier for me to be patient if I think you're mentally translating everything you say from Swahili.

So Christ (seeing) really did not observe or see what he was doing. Casting out the blind, dumb, deaf so called Spirits. But these seen as Satan or "devils" were the very thing God said He made. So Christ could not see that Satan is God.

Paradise and Amos
Sittin' in a tree...
A match made in h...ell.

When He said to Peter "Get hence behind me for thou has not the things of God in mind but that of men is a clue.

I don't remember Peter saying, "Get hence behind me for thou has not the things of God in mind but that of men is a clue." Can you provide a reference?

Heres an even better one lol!

A better one what lol!

I've already ruled out better spelling, grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, and logic, but I'm still not sure what you're referring to.

If anyone accepts anyone I send he accepts me.

Christ said to Judas, "Go, what you are about to do do quickly"

Thus you can say, "He sent Him and they accepted Judas and therefore recieved HIM"

But what position were they in when they received HIM [sic], is the question.

Don't cha just love it?

Indeed. Another fundy who is one of the key players on our team.

I got to go to a fundamentalist board lol!

With your overwhelming intellect, flawless reasoning abilities and outstanding communication skills, you are likely to quickly attain god-like status.

Don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

d

diana

Originally posted by Paradisedreams2:
Whats the chances of these fitting??

Isaiah 42:19 Who [is] blind, but my SERVANT? or deaf, as my MESSENGER [that] I SENT? who [is] blind as [he that is] PERFECT, and blind as the LORD'S servant? If this is not Christ I don't know who it is because HE DID THE FOLLOWING (according to Christians)... next verse
(Isaiah 42:20)Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.

So the person this is speaking of IS Christ (it must be because He did the above right?)

Wrong. The Jews (whose scripture this is) seem to think he was referring to Israel itself.

Here's a hint: prophesies are about things that are supposed to happen in the future. If the verse is present or past tense, it isn't a prophesy.

He open the eyes of the blind right? He opened their ears right? made the deaf to hear, the blind, dumb, and deaf are ALL seen as what Christ supposedly did.

So? This passage speaks only of the servant of the Lord being deaf and blind--not about anybody healing it. Whence do you draw this particular inference?

[Future reference: terrific anti-Xn verse from their own bible, Isaiah 42:19: "Who is blind but my servant, or deaf like my messenger whom I send? Who is blind like my dedicated one, or blind like the servant of the Lord?" That's great. I'm thinking of having it framed.]

THE VERSE MUST BE HIM.

No.

If Christ says, "If the BLIND lead the blind won't THEY BOTH FALL INTO THE PIT? (interesting... what pit?) Apparently God is choosing to show His "Perfect Servant" as BLIND.

In conclusion Both Christ(a blind messenger of God) AND the follower of Christ end up in a pit according to HIS OWN WORDS.... This is too fun for words! But something to chew on

You are clearly a loon, but you demonstrate this far better than I could explain.

Back up a bit to (Isaiah 42:18) God is adressing the blind and deaf in relation to this whole awesome picture.

Tell me, tell me if you know!
Kim

Listen, you that are deaf; and you that are blind, look up and see!

I say this all the time. For some reason, my words go unheeded.

One bright day in the middle of the night,
Two dead boys got up to fight.
Back to back, they faced each other,
Drew their swords and shot each other.
A deaf policeman heard the noise
And came and shot the two dead boys.
If you don't believe my lie is true
Ask the blind man--he saw it too.

Really.

All sarcasm aside (ok...not entirely), the writer seemed to be appealing to people to open their eyes (figuratively), to not only hear, but consider the implications of what they'd learned.

This seems to have been addressed to Israel.

How the hell do you connect this drivel to Xst? Perhaps he was referenced in a footnote or something....

(Just an aside, what gender are you? I'm voting male, but I've heard at least one proponent for the other side. It doesn't really matter; it's just a curiousity thing.)

d

Paradisedreams2

Wrong. The Jews (whose scripture this is) seem to think he was referring to Israel itself

The jews whose scripture this is I read also and what "they seem to think" doesn't matter to me, I could care less really if scripture isn't a matter of "private" interpretation then I suppose following the book's own verses is erroring on the safer side verses popular opinion.

I said, "The verse must be Him"

you said, "No"

I say your entitled to read it any way you chose or not read it at all.

So? This passage speaks only of the servant of the Lord being deaf and blind--not about anybody healing it. Whence do you draw this particular inference?

What?! Please repeat the question for the jury.

"whence do you draw this particular inference"? Sorry I live not in thy blissful state of intelligence to understand what the heck you just asked.

[Future reference: terrific anti-Xn verse from their own bible, Isaiah 42:19: "Who is blind but my servant, or deaf like my messenger whom I send? Who is blind like my dedicated one, or blind like the servant of the Lord?" That's great. I'm thinking of having it framed.]


What an excellent idea Diane, I have some great frames in the attic if you'd like one


You are clearly a loon, but you demonstrate this far better than I could explain.


Another who has found strength in popular opinion.Looks like we both suck at "explaining" then don't we?

All sarcasm aside (ok...not entirely), the writer seemed to be appealing to people to open their eyes (figuratively), to not only hear, but consider the implications of what they'd learned.

I haven't shared everything on this so you can't conclude anything at all on what I wrote you weren't supposed to. It was a joke (a "leading" joke but still a joke) The comment after my post SAW THIS. You can make scripture say whatever you want it to say. Now my thoughts on Christ being the one who was blind did not mean "physical blindness" as you understood it correctly. But Christians (who are an offshoot of Judiasm) believed in who they believe to be the messiah (promised to Isreal, but including the world) Christians believe to be "Christ".

Who is blind but my servant He who is "perfect" is seen opening the eyes of the blind and ears of the deaf. If anyone was pictured doing this it is Christ in the gospels. Christians don't attribute this verse to Christ either, I'm indeed the oddball out, I'm ok with this. But Isreal didn't open the eyes of the blind, or the ears of the deaf or perfect as far as how the description of Isreal goes. If they were all that they wouldn't need the promised messiah they are waiting on right?

How the hell do you connect this drivel to Xst? Perhaps he was referenced in a footnote or something....

You betcha I'm deeply into the study of misplaced footnotes


(Just an aside, what gender are you? I'm voting male, but I've heard at least one proponent for the other side. It doesn't really matter; it's just a curiousity thing.)


I'm a female (bodybuilder) I suppose you can go either way with that one lol!
Look, I love to study on line and I don't have too much time on my hands being a mom and the extracuricular activities I engage in. So I'm not one to argue about things. I don't want to spew personal insults on people taking vast amounts of space or thought doing that. But you don't have to agree with me, I don't care if the whole world sees it differently from me at least I'm not shoving morals down peoples throats and beating up anyone because of what I believe. I just study it out. If I get it wrong, I get it wrong its for me and no one else. But if ya ask... I'll tell.

Kim

Paradisedreams2

Sorry Diane,
I don't have as much time as you on my hands for answering your first post, I don't have the energy or hatred to undertake the task of returning your insults.


Your right I'm not at all intellectual or otherwise,I would have to agree but if being all that means I'd have to be insulting then I'm fine right where I am (in my eyes).

I like this place alot because its "teaching me" how to debate effectively if I go to the right place and catch the beauty of a discussion. Unforunately I don't have too great of an education and if it shows it only means its true. I'm sorry I wasn't as fortunate as you and that you find great pleasure in pointing that out. I learn here what "not" to do as well as what I'd like to do, so I appreciate both examples and both are teachers to me.

So though I'm not getting it just yet I might be REALLY SLOW perhaps you can teach me through your example how to debate more accurately. But on this post I was laughing at it and not debating it.

Talulah

All other thoughts aside for the moment, I realise (I think) that you (sorry I am not sure which one it was) did not mean to imply that Christ was literally blind. I didn't understand a lot of your post (a little clarity would help) and that was what I latched on to, as I have a profoundly limited amount of time to read and respond to posts. Forgive my mix up, I shall try to pay more attention in the future. Also, I wouldn't want anyone to think I was a total stupid ass.

diana

Originally posted by Paradisedreams2:
So though I'm not getting it just yet I might be REALLY SLOW perhaps you can teach me through your example how to debate more accurately.

OK. As good a place to start as any would be:

Sorry Diane,

attention to detail.

Your inability to get a simple five-letter name correct does not instill confidence in your ability to decipher a 4000-year-old text with any degree of accuracy.

Unforunately I don't have too great of an education and if it shows it only means its true. I'm sorry I wasn't as fortunate as you and that you find great pleasure in pointing that out.

Close, so I'll give points on that one. I derive personal amusement from picking on people who have begun a discussion antagonistically--and you did. In deference to you, I'll provide a running commentary using little words. (To wit: I was having fun at your expense. You asked for it. I'll talk down to you if you prefer.)

I learn here what "not" to do as well as what I'd like to do, so I appreciate both examples and both are teachers to me.

If you wish to be taken seriously, you must put forth the effort to make your ideas understandable to someone other than yourself. Once you've learned to be fairly coherent, you might dabble in the basics of logic. Consider actually answering reasonable objections from the opposition.

(We can't read your mind. Learn to think. Answer questions.)

I don't have as much time as you on my hands for answering your first post, I don't have the energy or hatred to undertake the task of returning your insults.

You may require actual hatred to insult someone, but I react that way when I am merely disgusted. Don't flatter yourself. I don't know you well enough to hate you.

(I have a wider range of emotions than happy, sad and mad.)

For future reference, in insulting someone, having something to work with significantly reduces the effort you're required to expend.

If I were to answer a post with something that sounded like, "Cow bladders fly north to the Everglades for Easter lol! Isaiah MUST be talking directly to Helen Keller in chapter 42 verse 19 who else is deaf and blind lol!," I'd expect to be heckled mercilessly, as well.

(I'd have wasted more energy avoiding insulting you.)

Your right I'm not at all intellectual or otherwise,I would have to agree but if being all that means I'd have to be insulting then I'm fine right where I am (in my eyes).

Hasty generalization, ad hoc ergo propter hoc.

(Your thinker doesn't work right.)

I said: Wrong. The Jews (whose scripture this is) seem to think he was referring to Israel itself...

You responded: The jews whose scripture this is I read also and what "they seem to think" doesn't matter to me, I could care less really if scripture isn't a matter of "private" interpretation then I suppose following the book's own verses is erroring on the safer side verses popular opinion.

I was not appealing to popular opinion, but thank you for playing. I was suggesting that those who wrote it, understand the original tongue, and base their belief on what it says disagree with you. You are not "erroring" on the safer side; you're out in left field--unless you can produce something that connects this with Xst. You asked who else it could have been talking about, and I answered you. So again: how do you connect this with Xst?

I said: So? This passage speaks only of the servant of the Lord being deaf and blind--not about anybody healing it. Whence do you draw this particular inference?

You said: What?! Please repeat the question for the jury.

"whence do you draw this particular inference"? Sorry I live not in thy blissful state of intelligence to understand what the heck you just asked.

The jury might consider bookmarking and referencing <a href="http://m-w.com/" target="_blank">Merriam-Webster Online</a> whenever necessary.

"Whence do you draw this particular inference?" means you've clearly inferred something from the text in question that is not apparent to me, and I've asked you to elucidate.

(Where'd you get that idea?)

I said: You are clearly a loon, but you demonstrate this far better than I could explain.

You said: Another who has found strength in popular opinion.

If you wish to insult, ensure your jabs are supported and warranted. This is neither.

Looks like we both suck at "explaining" then don't we?

Not at all. I just use words you don't understand.

Who is blind but my servant He who is "perfect" is seen opening the eyes of the blind and ears of the deaf. If anyone was pictured doing this it is Christ in the gospels. Christians don't attribute this verse to Christ either, I'm indeed the oddball out, I'm ok with this. But Isreal didn't open the eyes of the blind, or the ears of the deaf or perfect as far as how the description of Isreal goes.

The verse we were discussing didn't say anything about a servant opening the eyes of the blind or the ears of the deaf. This is a connection you have made that is completely unsupported by the text.

The people are blind and deaf. The servant (messenger) effectively is.

Remember what I said about that attention to detail? You need to read Isaiah 42:18-22 again. He speaks of those who are deaf and blind in the present tense (at the time of his writing). The messenger you reference is present tense, as well. Verse 21 speaks of the Lord being pleased with his messenger's teaching in the past tense. Verse 22 makes it clear that those in question are Israel at the time of writing.

(When in doubt, look at the context.)

If they were all that they wouldn't need the promised messiah they are waiting on right?

The whole point of the passage is that they had turned their backs on God. There is no reference in the entire chapter to Xst.

I don't want to spew personal insults on people taking vast amounts of space or thought doing that.

Good. You might work on those first impressions, now.

...at least I'm not shoving morals down peoples throats and beating up anyone because of what I believe.

That's something, I suppose. You are arrogant and haven't supported a damn thing with anything approaching coherence, but we can work on that.

By the way, you might consider answering (in the interest of debate) my observations that anyone can take a vague quote that has no time limit and isn't even in the future tense out of context and call it a "prediction" of something after that thing has occurred. The thriving industry of astrology counts on this. Why should we give your claims any more credence than Nostradamus?

Also, you didn't explain what Zech 13:7ff ("I will turn my hand against the little ones") means, since you obviously have the rest of the verse figured out.

Inquiring minds want to know.

d

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Paradisedreams2

Heres the verse in question

Zech. 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the LITTLE ONES.

(Christ said think not that I have come to bring peace but a "sword")Its not a literal knife, If the Sword seen in Zech is Gods words bringing themselves into fulfillment Christ being struck by God in that manner wasn't with a literal sword. To be scattered is the division he said He came to bring (the household is the jewish nation, or rather Isreal).

What God seemed to do (in slaying anyone) had "positive" results not hurtful.

Psalm 78:34 When he SLEW THEM, then THEY SOUGHT HIM: and they returned and enquired early after God.


Same similitude as the Lord "coming down" to see the city and tower MEN were building speaking of one language, He came down and "confused it" and dividing them (or scattering them). The principle is seen as, "Unless the Lord builds the house they that labor, labor in vain" Thats why Christ asked them, "Why is not my language clear to you".

Infants are described here....
Isaiah 65:20 There shall be NO MORE thence AN INFANT OF DAYS, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the CHILD shall die an HUNDRED YEARS OLD; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.

So I don't take the scriptures literally, a child dies a hundred years? Perhaps in our language but I'm finding a different language in scriptures, (so I try to follow it through)

Psalm 137:9 Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones... How can anyone be happy about that if its literal?

Psalm 144:12 That our sons [may be] as plants grown up in their youth; [that] our DAUGHTERS [may be] AS CORNER STONES, polished [after] the SIMILITUDE of a PALACE.

A similitude of a palace (or house) finds its meaning here (to me at least)

1Peter 2:5 Ye also, as LIVELY STONES, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ

Ecc.3:5 A time to CAST AWAY STONES, and a time to GATHER STONES TOGETHER; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

Jos 4:6 That this may be a sign among you, [that] when your children ask [their fathers] in time to come, saying, WhAT [mean] YE By THESE STONES?
Jos 4:7 Then ye shall answer them, That the waters of Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD; when it passed over Jordan, the waters of Jordan were cut off: and these STONES shall be for a MEMORIAL unto the children of Israel FOR EVER. Theres a "meaning in it"

Jesus bringing more clarity to the stones says,
Mathew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able OF THESE STONES TO RAISE UP CHILDREN unto Abraham. (how do you do that if a stone is literally a peice of gravel?)

Lev.14:42 And they shall take OTHER STONES, and PUT [them] IN THE PLACE OF THOSE STONES; and he shall take other morter, and shall plaister the house.

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the STONES would immediately CRY OUT. (stones don't "cry out", the reference to raising up CHILDREN FROM "THESE STONES".

So in the similitudes (these are only scratching the surface of the picture and no picture can be really drawn from just this, because in these pictures are more pictures)

For example there are 12 stones (smooth ones) can be referenced to Jacob and you can go on that.

There is a reference to christ as a "Rock" Him being judged is is seen as God said, "Is not my WORD a FIRE a HAMMER that breaks a ROCK to "peices" (little stones) you can take off with the word "fire" too. Same principle concerning the One seed dying producing many seeds... One "Rock" smashed into "peices".

His Word is a double edged Sword, the Sword is seen AGAINST His Shepherd.
The Sword is the Word, the Hammer is the Word, The Fire is the Word (as its seen in scripture.
Theres the matter of the "Law" (Tree of knowledge of good and evil) I see as a similitude. Moses gives them the law and they say, "All that the Lord says WE WILL DO"

But in Neh 10:12 it shows you the what the law is to those who bind themselves to it.

They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and ENTERED INTO A CURSE, and INTO AN OATH,TO WALK IN GOD'S LAW, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes; (same story in the garden just said differently)

Why is this???? (go elsewhere and find the following)

Ezek 20:25 Wherefore I GAVE THEM also statutes [that were] NOT GOOD, and judgments whereby THEY SHOULD NOT LIVE; (the day you eat thereof you shall surely Die)

Where else is the "principle" seen in the similitude? Right here in...

Numbers 5:19-22 And the priest shall CHARGE HER BY AN OATH, and say unto the WOMAN, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this BITTER WATER THAT CAUSETH A CURSE: But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband: Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. And The Woman (Isreal) did say "Amen" to that because its just one of many pictures of the Law using keywords God speaks in other places to see the picture.

(The going aside to another is seen as "unfaithfulness") This is not condemnation to her at all or anyone the picture just shows you what this all means in light of everything else.


She(Isreal) is charged by an OATH (her oath was to "walk in Gods Law" binding herself to a curse) and through Christ she is free from that bitter water(The Law)which brings a curse. (same type of curse in the garden, type of bearing fruit to death) Seen as her "fruit" departs from her (the fruit she longs for does not come though the law)


The Woman (Isreal) is "CAUSED" (or made to) to drink this bitter water that CAUSES a CURSE. It then reads IT SHALL COME TO PASS (future tense meaning prophesy) that if she had been "unfaithful" the curse shall enter her causing her thigh to rot and belly to swell. Christ took that curse, nailing the law and its commandments that stood opposed to Isreal. So Isreal (the woman) in the verse is Free.

But the cup Christ had to drink he also said she would drink, to uncover thier "nakedness" to know in her heart she cannot keep the law.

To me, one thing leads to another so I can understand the whole picture. I'm still connecting these things so I don't have every answer. Its a BIG BOOK, Christ indicated that every jot and tittle had to be fulfilled and that the scriptures spoke of Him, so I'm testing it out according to what He said and what the Old testament said.


I'm sure I just wasted my time. I take everything as a "similitude" thats it. Everyone sees it as "something" be it true, untrue, literally, spiritually, or as a peice of history, and the like. This is my understanding and to "me" it makes perfect sense but it continually links and all these links have not been studied out sufficiently to put forth clearly... Besides my lack of intelligence in comparison to your greatness

Talulah

ParadiseDreams,

Just curious. What church teaches you to interpret the bible like that? It is ...bizarre...to say the least. I could spend a lot of time pointing out everything that I thought was silly about your post, but I will be lazy and let Diana do it since she is so good at it.