SSM bill passes the Senate 61-36

I was referring to what you said.
What "specific instructions " were you referring to?
Here's what I said, "By manner of abridged introduction, let me explain., I've accepted a couple historic givens: Jesus the Christ was born in Bethlehem in Israel, lived and died in accordance with ancient prophecies concerning him, and He rose from the dead in accordance with the same. That historic fact serves key understandings I have: God is One to be reckoned with. His words have been vindicated, and His Word will be vindicated. From there, I inform myself from His Word. In short, the manufacturer has given an owner's manual, and has instructed us to own and to optimize what He has delegated to us. There are specific instructions on sexuality that I do not feel the need to question, and there are specific revelations given as to the consequences of neglecting these specific instructions." So your question that followed was in this context, where you said, "So if you follow these specific instructions you do not n need a Great Physician."

That's why I was puzzled. My point is that we're given instructions to optimize our own life and contributions. We're shown what duties to assume, how, and that the reward is for faithfulness and the consequences that are related to ignoring our delegated responsibilities. The "specific instructions" I mentioned was not intended to suggest an exclusive list...and the consequences of ignoring God's precepts and principles are not exclusively sin related as if "homosexuality" was more egregious than selfishness and abuse. Sin is sin, defined as any "off target" response to given stimuli, missing the mark. The consequences of sin kick in more swiftly and to a greater degree on the leader who has been delegated much. Moses was kept from the promised land because he smacked the rock like he did the first time, instead of merely speaking to it.

Men wrote the books of the bible.
That's the second time you have mentioned this...are you suggesting that the Bible is less authoritative for that reason? Men wrote a lot of things. the Bible is set apart and above any other writing for the cooperation it boasts in its writing.
Tell me- why didn't Abraham have the "owners manual"?
Or the great majority of the people who've lived?
This is actually a great question. I have some ideas:

Abraham had what he had, and with what he had, he did what he did, and won favor. Abraham knew the days of his visitation and responded correctly.

We're ignoring those days to our own detriment.

The folks involved in the testimonies of scripture were instructed and responded, and their behavior was written down to instruct future generations...as the Bible (meaning "library") developed over centuries.

New Testament folk had only the OT to work from, and did what they did and judged as they did, and that, too, was written down for our instruction.

And here's the key: All were instructed by the Holy Spirit, and given what to say and what to write, and their response to His instruction was also written down, which leads to Acts 2, where that Same Holy Spirit was given to the church as Instructor. He is the Owners Manual, inscribed as Ezekiel wrote, on the flesh of our new hearts, and our relationship and obedience to him is the measure of faith we will ever be able to boast.

Most folks today are ignoring Him to their own hurt. He will actually point to the "Owners Manual", because His purpose is so tightly woven therein that we can catch ourselves stumbling without anyone pointing the finger or threatening us with religious sanction.

I look forward to your thoughts. I'm sorry that mine get so delayed, but such is the nature of my schedule. The luxury of rapid response is limited to certain days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Then "respecting an establishment of religion" does not refer to the act of establishing a religion, but favouring an established religion.
No...you do not understand English. "respecting the establishment of religion" has nothing to do with respect. It has everything to do with everything else: "Congress shall make no law respecting..." means congress will do nothing to rule on or over, or in regards to/concerning/on the subject of religion. The clause makes religion a hands off issue in congressional decision making.

English is a very good language.
 
You know nothing. Your credentials must be mail order credentials, and your “lecture” a zoom session. Sorry, “Professor”, you just shoot any credibility you had.
It’s fiction, man.

There are a lot of ancient stories. Plenty of them older than the writings in the Hebrew Bible.

and please don’t go to “Spider-Man takes place in New York. New York is real, so Spider-Man must be true”

I know all of you people’s “arguments”
 
It’s fiction, man.

There are a lot of ancient stories. Plenty of them older than the writings in the Hebrew Bible.

and please don’t go to “Spider-Man takes place in New York. New York is real, so Spider-Man must be true”

I know all of you people’s “arguments”
Yep, your whole routine is fiction.
 
Here's what I said, "By manner of abridged introduction, let me explain., I've accepted a couple historic givens: Jesus the Christ was born in Bethlehem in Israel,
“According to Robin Lane Fox, “Luke’s story is historically impossible and internally incoherent.” But he says, “Luke’s errors and contradictions are easily explained. Early Christian tradition did not remember, or perhaps ever know, exactly where and when Jesus had been born. People were much more interested in his death and consequences.” “After the crucifixion and the belief in the resurrection, people wondered all the more deeply about Jesus’ birthplace. Bethlehem, home of King David, was a natural choice for the new messiah. There was even a prophecy in support of the claim which the ‘little town’ has maintained so profitably to this day.” So, “a higher truth was served by an impossible fiction.” [The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible(Knopf, 1992), p. 31-32]. “Luke’s real source for the view that Jesus was born in Bethlehem was almost certainly the conviction that Jesus fulfilled a hope that someday a descendant of David would arise to save Israel,” because the Messiah was supposed to come from there (Micah 5:2). [E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (p. 87.)].

In many other places we read that the people of his time called him "Jesus of Nazareth" (Matthew 26:70-72; Mark 1:23-25; Mark 10:46-48; Luke 4:34; Luke 18:37; Luke 24:20; John 1:45; John 18:6-8; John 19:19; Acts 2:22; Acts 6:14; Acts 10:38; Acts 22:9; Acts 26:9), so scholars conclude it's more likely that Jesus was born and raised in Nazareth.”


“Robin James Lane Fox, FRSL (born 5 October 1946)[1] is an English classicist, ancient historian, and gardening writer known for his works on Alexander the Great.[2] Lane Fox is an Emeritus Fellow of New College, Oxford and Reader in Ancient History, University of Oxford. Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History at New College from 1977 to 2014, he serves as Garden Master and as Extraordinary Lecturer in Ancient History for both New and Exeter Colleges. He has also taught Greek and Latin literature and early Islamic history.[3][4]”


lived and died in accordance with ancient prophecies concerning him, and He rose from the dead in accordance with the same. That historic fact serves key understandings I have: God is One to be reckoned with. His words have been vindicated, and His Word will be vindicated. From there, I inform myself from His Word. In short, the manufacturer has given an owner's manual, and has instructed us to own and to optimize what He has delegated to us. There are specific instructions on sexuality that I do not feel the need to question, and there are specific revelations given as to the consequences of neglecting these specific instructions." So your question that followed was in this context, where you said, "So if you follow these specific instructions you do not n need a Great Physician."

That's why I was puzzled. My point is that we're given instructions to optimize our own life and contributions. We're shown what duties to assume, how, and that the reward is for faithfulness and the consequences that are related to ignoring our delegated responsibilities. The "specific instructions" I mentioned was not intended to suggest an exclusive list...and the consequences of ignoring God's precepts and principles are not exclusively sin related as if "homosexuality" was more egregious than selfishness and abuse. Sin is sin, defined as any "off target" response to given stimuli, missing the mark. The consequences of sin kick in more swiftly and to a greater degree on the leader who has been delegated much. Moses was kept from the promised land because he smacked the rock like he did the first time, instead of merely speaking to it.

That's the second time you have mentioned this...are you suggesting that the Bible is less authoritative for that reason? Men wrote a lot of things. the Bible is set apart and above any other writing for the cooperation it boasts in its writing.
This is actually a great question. I have some ideas:

Abraham had what he had, and with what he had, he did what he did, and won favor. Abraham knew the days of his visitation and responded correctly.

We're ignoring those days to our own detriment.

The folks involved in the testimonies of scripture were instructed and responded, and their behavior was written down to instruct future generations...as the Bible (meaning "library") developed over centuries.

New Testament folk had only the OT to work from, and did what they did and judged as they did, and that, too, was written down for our instruction.

And here's the key: All were instructed by the Holy Spirit, and given what to say and what to write, and their response to His instruction was also written down, which leads to Acts 2, where that Same Holy Spirit was given to the church as Instructor. He is the Owners Manual, inscribed as Ezekiel wrote, on the flesh of our new hearts, and our relationship and obedience to him is the measure of faith we will ever be able to boast.

Most folks today are ignoring Him to their own hurt. He will actually point to the "Owners Manual", because His purpose is so tightly woven therein that we can catch ourselves stumbling without anyone pointing the finger or threatening us with religious sanction.

I look forward to your thoughts. I'm sorry that mine get so delayed, but such is the nature of my schedule. The luxury of rapid response is limited to certain days.
You are aware that there are 2, contradictory genealogies of Christ in the NT, right? And, no, one is not through Mary.

Here is the sad rationalization from Christianity Today:

“Then there is the question of Jesus’ paternal grandfather(s). Ever since the early third century, people have speculated that Joseph had two fathers”
 
“According to Robin Lane Fox, “Luke’s story is historically impossible and internally incoherent.” But he says, “Luke’s errors and contradictions are easily explained. Early Christian tradition did not remember, or perhaps ever know, exactly where and when Jesus had been born. People were much more interested in his death and consequences.” “After the crucifixion and the belief in the resurrection, people wondered all the more deeply about Jesus’ birthplace. Bethlehem, home of King David, was a natural choice for the new messiah. There was even a prophecy in support of the claim which the ‘little town’ has maintained so profitably to this day.” So, “a higher truth was served by an impossible fiction.” [The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible(Knopf, 1992), p. 31-32]. “Luke’s real source for the view that Jesus was born in Bethlehem was almost certainly the conviction that Jesus fulfilled a hope that someday a descendant of David would arise to save Israel,” because the Messiah was supposed to come from there (Micah 5:2). [E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (p. 87.)].
He is clueless...with zero substantive basis on which to build his claim. Luke was meticulous in his research. "Impossible fiction..." happened despite his baseless claims.

In many other places we read that the people of his time called him "Jesus of Nazareth" (Matthew 26:70-72; Mark 1:23-25; Mark 10:46-48; Luke 4:34; Luke 18:37; Luke 24:20; John 1:45; John 18:6-8; John 19:19; Acts 2:22; Acts 6:14; Acts 10:38; Acts 22:9; Acts 26:9), so scholars conclude it's more likely that Jesus was born and raised in Nazareth.”
No. Raised in Nazareth. He is "of Nazareth" because his family resided there, and his father was even known around the Sea of Galilee. If you reject the historic account of two historians, Matthew and Luke, you're stuck inventing according to your own bias, which is what atheists are forced to do.

“Robin James Lane Fox, FRSL (born 5 October 1946)[1] is an English classicist, ancient historian, and gardening writer known for his works on Alexander the Great.[2] Lane Fox is an Emeritus Fellow of New College, Oxford and Reader in Ancient History, University of Oxford. Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History at New College from 1977 to 2014, he serves as Garden Master and as Extraordinary Lecturer in Ancient History for both New and Exeter Colleges. He has also taught Greek and Latin literature and early Islamic history.[3][4]”
He is also an atheist.

"Historian"? Dubious claim, but clearly biblical archaeology is not his forte. Luke is called a physician, a scientist of his day...and acquainted with research. His research and his accounts/chronologies and geography have been acclaimed even by reasonable and honest hostile sources. "Historically impossible?" Back up the claim. It's been attempted for centuries to no avail. The claimant has lost all credibility at every claim.

Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem by virtue of the decree of a census during the days of Herod. That was the town of his ancestry, not his established residence. The trip from Nazareth to Jerusalem was taken by devout Jews three times a year for the feasts in Jerusalem. No biblical claim is implausible.

You are aware that there are 2, contradictory genealogies of Christ in the NT, right? And, no, one is not through Mary.
Prove it. You cannot.

You know Paul admonishes the church to avoid controversies over "genealogies." The claims are neither inexplicable nor central. If these are your personal favorite excuses for your own unbelief, good luck.

I'm sure He'll understand.

Here is the sad rationalization from Christianity Today:

“Then there is the question of Jesus’ paternal grandfather(s). Ever since the early third century, people have speculated that Joseph had two fathers”
Folks have been seeking to reconcile the irreconcilable ever since they were written. I did not do the research, because I'm not troubled with genealogies. If your best argument is a British atheist and genealogies, pat yourself on the back, Professor...and go back to sleep.
 
It’s fiction, man.

There are a lot of ancient stories. Plenty of them older than the writings in the Hebrew Bible.

and please don’t go to “Spider-Man takes place in New York. New York is real, so Spider-Man must be true”

I know all of you people’s “arguments”
You've clearly argued with some lucid "scholars", Professor..."I know all of you people's 'arguments'" is quite a claim, when your own chief argument is ripped off of a Cambridge atheist with a propensity for invention.
 
Jesus the Christ was born in Bethlehem in Israel, lived and died in accordance with ancient prophecies concerning him, and He rose from the dead in accordance with the same.
But He failed to rebuild the Temple, as the prophecies said. He failed to bring all the Jews back to Israel, as the prophecies said. He failed to usher in an era of 1,000 years of peace, as the prophecies said.

He fulfilled some, but not all, of the prophecies. It is reasonable to withhold judgement until all, not just some, of the prophecies have been fulfilled.

Any male born in Bethlehem fulfils some, but not all, of the prophecies. That means "some, but not all," is not enough. Otherwise there would be a great many claimants to be the Messiah.

The Jews are right to wait for the first coming.
 
You've clearly argued with some lucid "scholars", Professor..."I know all of you people's 'arguments'" is quite a claim, when your own chief argument is ripped off of a Cambridge atheist with a propensity for invention.
Believe me

I know all of you people’s “arguments”
 
But He failed to rebuild the Temple, as the prophecies said. He failed to bring all the Jews back to Israel, as the prophecies said. He failed to usher in an era of 1,000 years of peace, as the prophecies said.

He fulfilled some, but not all, of the prophecies. It is reasonable to withhold judgement until all, not just some, of the prophecies have been fulfilled.

Any male born in Bethlehem fulfils some, but not all, of the prophecies. That means "some, but not all," is not enough. Otherwise there would be a great many claimants to be the Messiah.

The Jews are right to wait for the first coming.
He did rebuild the temple, the curtain was torn in two and His Spirit lives in His believers.
 
“According to Robin Lane Fox, “Luke’s story is historically impossible and internally incoherent.” But he says, “Luke’s errors and contradictions are easily explained. Early Christian tradition did not remember, or perhaps ever know, exactly where and when Jesus had been born. People were much more interested in his death and consequences.” “After the crucifixion and the belief in the resurrection, people wondered all the more deeply about Jesus’ birthplace. Bethlehem, home of King David, was a natural choice for the new messiah. There was even a prophecy in support of the claim which the ‘little town’ has maintained so profitably to this day.” So, “a higher truth was served by an impossible fiction.” [The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible(Knopf, 1992), p. 31-32]. “Luke’s real source for the view that Jesus was born in Bethlehem was almost certainly the conviction that Jesus fulfilled a hope that someday a descendant of David would arise to save Israel,” because the Messiah was supposed to come from there (Micah 5:2). [E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (p. 87.)].

In many other places we read that the people of his time called him "Jesus of Nazareth" (Matthew 26:70-72; Mark 1:23-25; Mark 10:46-48; Luke 4:34; Luke 18:37; Luke 24:20; John 1:45; John 18:6-8; John 19:19; Acts 2:22; Acts 6:14; Acts 10:38; Acts 22:9; Acts 26:9), so scholars conclude it's more likely that Jesus was born and raised in Nazareth.”


“Robin James Lane Fox, FRSL (born 5 October 1946)[1] is an English classicist, ancient historian, and gardening writer known for his works on Alexander the Great.[2] Lane Fox is an Emeritus Fellow of New College, Oxford and Reader in Ancient History, University of Oxford. Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History at New College from 1977 to 2014, he serves as Garden Master and as Extraordinary Lecturer in Ancient History for both New and Exeter Colleges. He has also taught Greek and Latin literature and early Islamic history.[3][4]”



You are aware that there are 2, contradictory genealogies of Christ in the NT, right? And, no, one is not through Mary.

Here is the sad rationalization from Christianity Today:

“Then there is the question of Jesus’ paternal grandfather(s). Ever since the early third century, people have speculated that Joseph had two fathers”
Well not born in Nazareth.
 
I get that. The Good Word. The basis of the good word is however wholly reliant on the core issue of human damnation as a presupposition. Damnation is implied before the Good Word is even required. Jumping straight to the Good Word assumes the veracity of this conjecture of some pre-existing condition deserving death at the get-go. Thus the cancer analogy. Just tell everybody they have cancer and scare them into some belief of their horrible future, and sell them the Good News.... oncology. There was actually a doctor here in Michigan, Farad Fata, that did exactly that. Every patient he saw was declared to have cancer and he plugged them in. My boss went to him, but the guy was arrested before my boss went into the false treatment. The fear he felt was enormous.. it changed his life.

Is that really good news? Religion seems to think those types of messages are fair game because of some supernatural authority, an authority they don't question and can't explore.

At least with the sexual identities with children, we will see in real-time how that plays out and will eventually have to change our anything-goes approach to that. As for the after-life... can't explore it, experiment with it, change our attitudes about it based on evidence over time. For the religious, fear and psy-op terroism is allowed... condoned... just get the job done.... get em' plugged in.
We are seeing how it plays out with children. And its abuse
 
But He failed to rebuild the Temple, as the prophecies said. He failed to bring all the Jews back to Israel, as the prophecies said. He failed to usher in an era of 1,000 years of peace, as the prophecies said.

He fulfilled some, but not all, of the prophecies. It is reasonable to withhold judgement until all, not just some, of the prophecies have been fulfilled.

Any male born in Bethlehem fulfils some, but not all, of the prophecies. That means "some, but not all," is not enough. Otherwise there would be a great many claimants to be the Messiah.

The Jews are right to wait for the first coming.
Has time ended?
 
He is clueless...with zero substantive basis on which to build his claim. Luke was meticulous in his research. "Impossible fiction..." happened despite his baseless claims.

I cited a respected scholar.

You seem unaware of the different gospel narratives and their glaring contradictions


No. Raised in Nazareth. He is "of Nazareth" because his family resided there, and his father was even known around the Sea of Galilee. If you reject the historic account of two historians, Matthew and Luke, you're stuck inventing according to your own bias, which is what atheists are forced to do.

The gospels are not histories. There is no magic in history. They are hegiographies
He is also an atheist.

“All thinking men are atheists”
-Ernest Hemingway
"Historian"? Dubious claim, but clearly biblical archaeology is not his forte. Luke is called a physician, a scientist of his day...and acquainted with research. His research and his accounts/chronologies and geography have been acclaimed even by reasonable and honest hostile sources. "Historically impossible?" Back up the claim. It's been attempted for centuries to no avail. The claimant has lost all credibility at every claim.

You seem totally unfamiliar with real biblical archeology. Sounds like you are getting your misinformation from Sunday School
Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem by virtue of the decree of a census during the days of Herod. That was the town of his ancestry, not his established residence. The trip from Nazareth to Jerusalem was taken by devout Jews three times a year for the feasts in Jerusalem. No biblical claim is implausible.

If the story of the census is true them Matthew is wrong about Herod being around, since he died 10 years earlier.



Prove it. You cannot.

You know Paul admonishes the church to avoid controversies over "genealogies." The claims are neither inexplicable nor central. If these are your personal favorite excuses for your own unbelief, good luck.

It’s your magic book, man.

one of the genealogies could be true, or they could both be false, but they can’t both be true

I'm sure He'll understand.


Folks have been seeking to reconcile the irreconcilable ever since they were written. I did not do the research, because I'm not troubled with genealogies. If your best argument is a British atheist and genealogies, pat yourself on the back, Professor...and go back to sleep.
you don’t even care, do you?

you are just content being wrong
 
I cited a respected scholar.

You seem unaware of the different gospel narratives and their glaring contradictions




The gospels are not histories. There is no magic in history. They are hegiographies


“All thinking men are atheists”
-Ernest Hemingway


You seem totally unfamiliar with real biblical archeology. Sounds like you are getting your misinformation from Sunday School


If the story of the census is true them Matthew is wrong about Herod being around, since he died 10 years earlier.





It’s your magic book, man.

one of the genealogies could be true, or they could both be false, but they can’t both be true


you don’t even care, do you?

you are just content being wrong
You did quote a respected scholar, but that doesnt mean that scholar must be right because you agree.
There are apparent contradictions in the Bible, though not always in holistic context
The majority of scholars would disagree with what he says.
 
You did quote a respected scholar, but that doesnt mean that scholar must be right because you agree.
There are apparent contradictions in the Bible, though not always in holistic context
The majority of scholars would disagree with what he says.
you don’t even know what a real scholar is

real scholars agree with my worldview because my worldview is grounded in reality

I understand you do not know this, but real Biblical scholarship follows the same academic standards as every other discipline

you people just make stuff up and try to rationalize your dogma. You start with an answer and try to rationalize it. That is the exact opposite of scholarship
 
Back
Top