Re: HELP! I Just Watched An In Depth & Unorthodox Bible Study Video That Shook My Fai
You said, "IF there were, and IF God told me to do so... then yes I would do it... I would do it, even if I didn't understand at the time all the whys", you admit that you would slit a baby's throat if God the Father told you to, yet you think that I am the one with religious issues?
You asked a longbow hypothetical question, and refused to back down until I gave you an answer. Then you berate me for giving it to you, while not even bothering to quote all of my response back at me. I never said you have religious issues - I think you need to go take a deep breath and do something else with your time. After this post, that is what I'll be doing, at any rate.
At first you said Deuteronomy 21:10-13 didn't sanction rape, then you said that it did but not for today, so I have this question... I'm not asking past or present, I'm not asking if other people carried out worse rapes in the past or present, I'm asking this - does God the Father in Deut 21:10-13 sanction rape? Is what is sanctioned there rape?
And now you're putting words in my mouth. I did not say Deuteronomy 21 was rape, I did not say rape was sanctioned then. You quote my words, but I'm not sure you read them. Again, if you're actually interested in the question instead of arguing your increasingly hysterical corner, deal with what I write please.
Again, Wayne said Jesus never claimed to be the angel, and instead Jesus had quoted the angel and called the angel "God" in Mark 12:26. In regards to this you eventually said "I'll cede the point", about time.
Again, as I noted in my first post on this issue, I don't think the question is closed either way on the evidence you gave. I also noted at the outset that I DON'T particularly think it was Jesus, but that I simply have a problem with the way you are arguing your stance, and at this particular point, as a tangential support to your main argument (as if cats=/= birds must mean dogs=birds). I ceded the point for the sake of argument because it seems the only way to make progress. Yet you try to win ad hominem brownie points on that too. Oh well.
The Jebusites where Satan worshipers, and that does matter when you have 1 Chronicles 21:1 saying that Satan is God the Father and in the very same chapter you have "an" angel standing on the temple floor of a Satan worshiper in 1 Chronicles 21:15. That's emphasizing that "an" angel at the Jebusite temple floor is the same one who was identified to be the angel of God who is God at the beginning of the chapter, and it even drives home "Satan" instead of your made up and more desired term "adversary". And both verses are mirrored to show these things - 1 Chronicles 21:1 is mirrored in 2 Samuel 24:1 and shows the angel Satan to be God the Father, also 1 Chronicles 21:15 is mirrored in 2 Chronicles 3:1 and shows that one who is "an" angel on the Jebusite's temple floor is God the Father.
You still are not reading my posts. There is nothing here that I haven't already replied to. That the angel of the Lord appeared in a Jebusite barn (it's a barn, not a temple, however much you wish it weren't) proves about as much as me turning up in a Muslim restaurant. You haven't bothered to respond to this.
You reject the grammatical argument without any discussion about the lack of a participle on the Hebrew term for adversary (if you're genuinely interested, go look at the Hebrew, and compare, for e.g 1 Kings 11:14). More importantly, right now your entirely theology hinges on two verses 1 Chron 21:2 and 2 Sam 24:1, that depict events surrounding the taking of the Davidic census, but are otherwise so entirely different in language and construction, and so obviously written seperately, that it simply can't be a simple matter of name swap. Instead, consider: When Rome conquered territory, was it Rome or specific generals (or soldiers) that did the conquering? That's the kind of issue you need to deal with before forcing the text to the conclusions you want to reach.
And all of this talk from you as if you're confident in your position, yet you don't even have an answer for who the angel of God is? You say things like "He maybe divine, maybe not, he maybe Jesus". You don't even know.
I don't need to say say who exactly the angel of God is. Why should I have to? All I need to say is that the angel of the Lord is frequently (but not always) used in a way that he meaningfully embodies the presence of the Lord, speaking with his very words. Anything more or less is simply going further than the text does, and then I stray into Job territory. If you want to be the guy who 'knows' what's up, good for you. But I'm not interested in constructing speculative theories in order to support whatever conclusion I've cooked up.
And I know you're not trying to fully promote that it is Jesus, but I still have the same question for you that I asked before... I want to see if you think Wayne presented better biblical evidence for who the angel is than anyone else has - "Other people without biblical evidence claim that the angel is Jesus, have you seen other people provide biblical evidence for the angel being Jesus that is on par with Wayne's biblical evidence that the angel is Satan from 1 Chron 21:1, 2 Sam 24:1, 1 Chron 21:15 and 2 Chron 3:1?"
As I said, I don't think Wayne's evidence is all that, so I'd say yes, I have seen evidence equal to his. I'm not convinced by either position, but I think the Jesus position has it, by virtue of the fact that at least Jesus is God, and that connection is much more obvious on the fact of the complete NT/OT evidence than the link from a handful of verses between God and Satan, in opposition to what is essentially the rest of the NT/OT evidence.
You said "... in a parable". Yes in a parable. As a matter of fact I had bet to myself that you wouldn't be willing (even though you are able) to answer my simple question about the parable. That actually shows how clear the statement is made in the parable. It's so clear that you didn't want to answer this question - who was physically in the vineyard first according to Mark 12:1 and 12:6, Jesus or the Father? That's as simple as it gets.
If you're going to be pedantic and require highly technical analysis of the wording of parables, it was neither. It was the owner of the vineyard.
The language in the parable is clear, Jesus physically was on earth in the New Testament, God the Father was physically on earth in the Old. That can't be taken away from it. Jesus didn't get literally thrown out of a vineyard - does that mean the crucifixion never happened or that Jesus never walked the streets of Nazareth? No. Likewise, God the Father never signed a lease but he definitely physically did stand on Mount Sinai in Ex 24:9-12.
It doesn't matter how clear you think the language is, it's still a parable. But whatever, I already conceded this particular point, I shan't argue it any longer.
With the language of Josh 6:21 and 1 Sam 15:1-3 you still honestly think that there is a possibility that there wasn't even 1 infant killed at all? Really? If that has a chance of being true then Jesus' crucifixion never happened according to the same bible.
This isn't worth yet another response. Read what I already posted. I gave you a link to several pages of academic examination of the topic. If you don't want to engage with it, I obviously can't make you.
Give me a break, Wayne showed that in Rom 9:8-9 Paul explains that it was the "God" who has "children" who "came" in Genesis 18. And you agree with Wayne in that. But then you have the audacity to say that in Paul's writings the "God" who has "children" can be someone other than God the Father? If the "God" who has "children" in Paul's writings isn't God the Father, then the "Christ" who was "crucified" could be anybody and not Jesus. Ridiculous. This does have to do with Scripture because how can you over look the fact that the "God" who has "children" in Paul's writings is clearly God the Father? That's religion and science. That's just a fact from a literal and literary stand point. This doesn't have to do with your analysis which basically sounds like this "well maybe technically kind of sort of we can be considered Jesus' kids too so maybe, even though it goes against all evidence of Paul's writing style, the 'God' who has 'children' isn't definitely God the Father in Paul's writing I guess" - crazy.
Why are you so keen to mischaracterise my argument? How does the God not exclusively meaning the Father equal the Christ not exclusively meaning Jesus? Did you have another Christ in mind?
Here we go once more, with feeling:
a) Paul almost always describes God the Father as Father in the context of Jesus (Father of our Lord Jesus Christ). When he is our Father, it is because we are in Christ. It has much more to do with the interior relationship of the Trinity than anything else.
b) Does Paul, when describing God here, exclusively mean the Father? Conversely, it is also worth considering Romans 10:13 and Joel 2:32 - did Joel exclusively mean the Father? We certainly would not expect him to mean Jesus. Does Paul mean Jesus? If so, how then do we conclude whether or not Paul, in Romans 9, means the Father or not when he says God?
c) If all things were made by Jesus and for Jesus, in what sense are we more the Father's children than Christ's children, and how does Paul make that sense clear in Genesis?
Essentially, your argument is only clear from a literary stand point if you first construct a context around your interpretation. I disagree that Paul's use of the ascription of theos meaning exclusively the Father - Titus 2 is enough to put paid to that as a certainty.
Anyway, if you have a return post to this one, good stuff. It's only fair that you have the last word in your own thread. But I'm tapping out.
