It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do you follow a genocidal God?

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


By your admission he didn't meet the requirements and therefore can NOT be your chosen Messiah. At best he is a prophet, nothing more, nothing less. As I said earlier, those prophecies are supposed to be fulfilled during the LIFETIME of the Messiah.

If you feel they are meant for his second coming, please show me scripture that supports this. Otherwise your arguments are just circular and a waste of time.

EDIT: Jesus can't be a High Priest because he wasn't born a Levite. If God were to annoint himself (a.k.a. Jesus Christ), then surely he would have made himself born a Levite.

edit on 15-8-2011 by novastrike81 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by XplanetX
 


By your admission he didn't meet the requirements and therefore can NOT be your chosen Messiah. At best he is a prophet, nothing more, nothing less. As I said earlier, those prophecies are supposed to be fulfilled during the LIFETIME of the Messiah.

If you feel they are meant for his second coming, please show me scripture that supports this. Otherwise your arguments are just circular and a waste of time.

EDIT: Jesus can't be a High Priest because he wasn't born a Levite. If God were to annoint himself (a.k.a. Jesus Christ), then surely he would have made himself born a Levite.

edit on 15-8-2011 by novastrike81 because: (no reason given)





What bible do you read?

HEB 5:7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

HEB 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared:

"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."



The high priest from the levitical priesthood was merely the foreshadowing of the high priest to come, the one anointed by the most high.

He did meet the requirements.

Show me where in scripture that it states Jesus had to fulfill all of the requirements before his second coming.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Hi Akragon (and everybody)

I want to add a little firecrackerology (a special branch of pastafarian apologetics) with a few quotes from XplanetX.


Quote 1: ["For him to be true, the whole message needs to be true."]

and

Quote 2. : ["And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."]

Now as anyone can see (from a standard logic position), quote one and quote two are incompatible.

In quote one is all or nothing, in quote two 'sin' (being a part of the whole message) remains even if Jesus isn't up to, what Paulus postulated about him.


And then:

As Akragon sensibly has asked, does christianity hinge upon a return of Jesus; can it still be taken seriously if he DOESN'T return? Considering that there has been app 40 'official' doomsday scenarios presented from almost day one, it's safe to conclude 1/ The 'prophets' involved were not 'true' christians, 2/ They were 'true' christians, but not good prophets, 3/ It's all bosh, 4/ If it doesn't happens this time either, it will next time ('jam tomorrow').

Referring to 'prophecy' as christian pro-argumentation appears to be rather pathetic. It's more like finding excuses for why it didn't/doesn't function, than being able to demonstrate any rational, undisputed examples. And the more frenetic the excusiology becomes, the less logic does it contain.

edit on 16-8-2011 by bogomil because: pasting went wrong



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Hi Akragon (and everybody)

I want to add a little firecrackerology (a special branch of pastafarian apologetics) with a few quotes from XplanetX.


Quote 1: ["For him to be true, the whole message needs to be true."]

and

Quote 2. : ["And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."]

Now as anyone can see (from a standard logic position), quote one and quote two are incompatible.

In quote one is all or nothing, in quote two 'sin' (being a part of the whole message) remains even if Jesus isn't up to, what Paulus postulated about him.


And then:

As Akragon sensibly has asked, does christianity hinge upon a return of Jesus; can it still be taken seriously if he DOESN'T return? Considering that there has been app 40 'official' doomsday scenarios presented from almost day one, it's safe to conclude 1/ The 'prophets' involved were not 'true' christians, 2/ They were 'true' christians, but not good prophets, 3/ It's all bosh, 4/ If it doesn't happens this time either, it will next time ('jam tomorrow').

Referring to 'prophecy' as christian pro-argumentation appears to be rather pathetic. It's more like finding excuses for why it didn't/doesn't function, than being able to demonstrate any rational, undisputed examples. And the more frenetic the excusiology becomes, the less logic does it contain.

edit on 16-8-2011 by bogomil because: pasting went wrong



You are correct in saying that they are incompatible. That is why Paul makes the point that our faith is futile if Jesus has not been raised from the dead.

Your point?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["You are correct in saying that they are incompatible. That is why Paul makes the point that our faith is futile if Jesus has not been raised from the dead.

Your point?"]

My point is, that the 'prophecy-branch' of the christianites are trying to score 'points' on something which may or may not happen. In other words: "We make some guesses, which CERTAINLY are going to be true. So we are right already now".

From even a slightly rational position such is non-sense, no matter how smart the semantic wrappings are.



edit on 16-8-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["You are correct in saying that they are incompatible. That is why Paul makes the point that our faith is futile if Jesus has not been raised from the dead.

Your point?"]

My point is, that the 'prophecy-branch' of the christianites are trying to score 'points' on something which may or may not happen. In other words: "We make some guesses, which CERTAINLY are going to be true. So we are right already now".

From even a slightly rational position such is non-sense, no matter how smart the semantic wrappings are.



edit on 16-8-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



There are plenty of prophecies that have already been fulfilled without needing the ones yet to be fulfilled to 'score points' as you put it.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


Foreshadowing only applies to fictional stories. So God anoints himself to be High Priest? I guess if you make your own rules its okay to break them since they are yours to begin with.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by XplanetX
 


Foreshadowing only applies to fictional stories. So God anoints himself to be High Priest? I guess if you make your own rules its okay to break them since they are yours to begin with.



The dead sea scrolls were carbon dated to a time before they were fulfilled. Fulfilled in exquisite detail I might add.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["There are plenty of prophecies that have already been fulfilled without needing the ones yet to be fulfilled to 'score points' as you put it."]

Only with the use of the specially constructed christian 'logic'. I'm here relying on examples from ATS. I haven't read much of the specially prepared manuals on the subject, because the semantics in them usually bores me almost terminally.

And while I thus may be accused of speaking from a position of ignorance, I DO need to make priorities. I don't follow up the finer points of people claiming to be representatives of the galactive federation either.

I approach from a general point of knowledge of standard logic and familiarity with application of ideological 'doctrines' (such as the use of self-proclaimed authority), where I'm somewhat competent.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You still seem to be eluding the fact that God anoints himself as High Priest, which is against his own rules. If God is breaking his own rules, then he must not be perfect by his own nature. Especially when he says his laws are eternal.

You still haven't shown scripture of prophecies that point to the fulfilment of Jesus being the true messiah after his second coming.

More Christian logic at it's best.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You still seem to be eluding the fact that God anoints himself as High Priest, which is against his own rules. If God is breaking his own rules, then he must not be perfect by his own nature. Especially when he says his laws are eternal.

You still haven't shown scripture of prophecies that point to the fulfilment of Jesus being the true messiah after his second coming.

More Christian logic at it's best.



Show me in scripture where it is against his rules.

Regarding your second question, I think it's time that you did a little digging for yourself.

MT 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

I could easily reference the scripture to answer your question, however I have done enough perusing and referencing for you at this stage. Do a little of your own leg work.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["Show me in scripture where it is against his rules."]

You have been fluctuating between positivistic claims ('absolutes') and back to 'this is my faith' positions along your posting career. Depending on what opposition you meet, and what 'fits' best in the present context.

Now you resort to a 'gnostic' position: "DISPROVE my claims".

Will you similarly 'disprove' the flying spaghetti monster to me, based on pastafarian texts?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by XplanetX
Show me in scripture where it is against his rules.


Absolutely.

Psalms 105:8; Psalms 119:152, 160; Pslams 119:89; Deuteronomy 11:1; 2 Kings 17:37 declare Gods word eternal and unchanging.

The verses in Exodus 40 say the priesthood of the High Priest can ONLY be held by a Levite; something Jesus was clearly not. He's automatically disqualified from being your Messiah. If God anoints himself, he broke his own rule.


MT 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.


I haven't received anything i asked for, even when I was a Christian.


I could easily reference the scripture to answer your question, however I have done enough perusing and referencing for you at this stage. Do a little of your own leg work.


You haven't shown me anything. This tells me you can't find it and want someone else to do it for you.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Certian inturpretations of Jesus can still be taken seriously even if he doesn't return. This is something most people seem to overlook. His message still holds true to this day.

On the other hand, even if he did return... who would recognise him?




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil
 


Certian inturpretations of Jesus can still be taken seriously even if he doesn't return. This is something most people seem to overlook. His message still holds true to this day.

On the other hand, even if he did return... who would recognise him?



Formerly I ruminated publicly here on this forum on the three types of bible-relating groups. Law, faith and do-good oriented.

The law and faith oriented, especially the missionary exponents, appear to be mainly centered around original sin, repenting and redemption, as accentuated in pauline christianities.

The do-gooders usually are less inclined to include the OT 'god' and whatever is associated with him, and refer to the Jesus-character discernable beyond the pauline doctrines. This Jesus isn't depending on any return, doomsday or a jealous, avenging, genocidal 'god', and while I personally don't 'believe' in Jesus (religiously) the principles of e.g. unconditional 'love' he represents are something I can sympathise strongly with (though often don't apply as much as I could).

Even I, a non-theist, am aware of what you represent and I am glad that some people can interpretate NT that way.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by XplanetX
Show me in scripture where it is against his rules.


Absolutely.

Psalms 105:8; Psalms 119:152, 160; Pslams 119:89; Deuteronomy 11:1; 2 Kings 17:37 declare Gods word eternal and unchanging.

The verses in Exodus 40 say the priesthood of the High Priest can ONLY be held by a Levite; something Jesus was clearly not. He's automatically disqualified from being your Messiah. If God anoints himself, he broke his own rule.


MT 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.


I haven't received anything i asked for, even when I was a Christian.


I could easily reference the scripture to answer your question, however I have done enough perusing and referencing for you at this stage. Do a little of your own leg work.


You haven't shown me anything. This tells me you can't find it and want someone else to do it for you.



I will not post more scriptures on this matter because you need to thoroughly read the book of Hebrews and educate yourself on this matter.

In regards to not receiving anything:


JAMES 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.

JAMES 4:1 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


So New Testiment theology proves the New Testament true? That's the best cop out you can come up with? It appears I'm more educated than you are as I can site the sources you asked for. You didn't even provide rebuttals to what I just provided. All you did was tuck your tail and run.

I think it is you who needs to go read the Old Testament and then come back and defend the book of Hebrews. After all, that's where all God's Laws come from.

You're right we may as well be done, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is intellectually dishonest.
edit on 17-8-2011 by novastrike81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by XplanetX
 


So New Testiment theology proves the New Testament true? That's the best cop out you can come up with? It appears I'm more educated than you are as I can site the sources you asked for. You didn't even provide rebuttals to what I just provided. All you did was tuck your tail and run.

I think it is you who needs to go read the Old Testament and then come back and defend the book of Hebrews. After all, that's where all God's Laws come from.

You're right we may as well be done, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is intellectually dishonest.
edit on 17-8-2011 by novastrike81 because: (no reason given)



It is more difficult to have a conversation with someone who has a false understanding about old testament scripture. It is clear to me that the author of the book of Hebrews had a far better understanding than yourself of the OT scriptures.

Like I said, the levitical priesthood was but a faint shadow of what was to come:

HEB 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


How is it a false understanding? The scriptures I listed clearly say that God's word is unchanging and everlasting. Exodus 40 says to become a High Priest you must be born a Levite. You refuse to believe this because it goes against your flip-flop positioning that you've taken through out this thread.

Paul the Heretic is generally considered the author of Hebrews, although it's uncertain. The falst Apostate who wished to replace God's law with his own form of righteousness. I'm also aware of Hebrews 4 that claims Jesus to be a High Priest.

I don't know how many times this has to be said but unless Jesus was born a Levite, he can't be a High Priest; herego, he doesn't meet the requirements. It doesn't matter if it was "foreshadowed", the Law of God is eternal and unchanging.


HEB 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.


I bolded the important part for you to see. Hebrews 7 contradicts the Old Testament and God's unchanging law.
edit on 17-8-2011 by novastrike81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by XplanetX
 


How is it a false understanding? The scriptures I listed clearly say that God's word is unchanging and everlasting. Exodus 40 says to become a High Priest you must be born a Levite. You refuse to believe this because it goes against your flip-flop positioning that you've taken through out this thread.

Paul the Heretic is generally considered the author of Hebrews, although it's uncertain. The falst Apostate who wished to replace God's law with his own form of righteousness. I'm also aware of Hebrews 4 that claims Jesus to be a High Priest.

I don't know how many times this has to be said but unless Jesus was born a Levite, he can't be a High Priest; herego, he doesn't meet the requirements. It doesn't matter if it was "foreshadowed", the Law of God is eternal and unchanging.


HEB 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.


I bolded the important part for you to see. Hebrews 7 contradicts the Old Testament and God's unchanging law.
edit on 17-8-2011 by novastrike81 because: (no reason given)



No.

It refers specifically to the priesthood and the tribe that they come from. Moses never handed down a law regarding priest's from another tribe.

Jesus became the high priest not through regulation but through the divine power of God.

I must also stress that in order to fulfill scripture, Jesus had to come from the tribe of Judah. (The lion of the tribe of Judah)




top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join