 |
|
11-21-2014, 06:24 PM
|
#15556
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
|
Who said? By what rules of language is it different?
|
Exactly, the reason I won't discuss interpretations with you. If you don't understand language it is a waste of time. One is a comparison and the other is a statement of declaration. And yes the Bible has metaphors and declarations.
A metaphor is a comparison. One statement is a metaphor, "I am a door". A declaratory statement of fact is not a metaphor. Declaratory statement of fact is, "this is my (fill in the blank)".
Apparently, in your world God was making a metaphor when He said about Jesus, "This is my son." Jesus isn't really God's son. He is an enlightened man who is like a son to me. So continue to make your silly posts about rules of language are not different in communicating differing concepts.
With your silly statements, you just keep on proving it is a waste of time to discuss Scripture with you. So I graciously accept your offered proof of the uselessness of discussing Scriptural interpretations with you.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
Last edited by Show Me the Wire; 11-21-2014 at 06:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 06:29 PM
|
#15557
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,962
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
One statement is a metaphor, "I am a door". .
|
Yes. As in "You make a better door than a window!" when someone is blocking the TV.
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 06:31 PM
|
#15558
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boxcar
Forget this passage. You need to reconcile the contradiction. Your interpretation of Paul's passage does NOT do that. Get busy and reconcile the contradiction. By your interpretation, Jesus sinned by drinking himself and them leading others into sin.
And are you working on the healing on the sabbath and ceremonial washings? Have you found these two in the Law of Moses yet?
|
Already answered several times. My interpretation is Jesus did not drink after the blessing. Your interpretation is "if" Jesus drank after the blessing. If you don't accept my previous answers, that is your prerogative and there is no need to rehash. See above post.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 06:53 PM
|
#15559
|
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boxcar
Yeah...tell me something: How would science test the claim that Solomon is the son of David.
|
First, science would want to test the claim that David and Solomon even existed. After that you need to ask a historian. My field is physics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boxcar
And I know God cannot come from nothing because God would have to create Himself, which violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. Also, God would have to exist first in order to create Himself. But if God already existed, then why the need to self-create?
|
FTFY
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 07:06 PM
|
#15560
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
Already answered several times. My interpretation is Jesus did not drink after the blessing. Your interpretation is "if" Jesus drank after the blessing. If you don't accept my previous answers, that is your prerogative and there is no need to rehash. See above post.
|
You have not answered. Jesus said very clearly that he would not drink AGAIN -- AGAIN...of the fruit of the vine until...
What part of "again" don't you understand? It makes absolutely no sense for him to say that if he hadn't shared in the cup with his disciples.
The second problem is that the disciples also drank; therefore, Jesus led them into sin, which would make him a sinner. If Jesus sinned, then we have a clear cut contradiction in the bible -- in fact, many of them!
Get busy...
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 07:08 PM
|
#15561
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Actor
First, science would want to test the claim that David and Solomon even existed. After that you need to ask a historian. My field is physics.
FTFY
|
Wait a minute! But I thought the scientific method applied to historical people, places and events?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 07:12 PM
|
#15562
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
Exactly, the reason I won't discuss interpretations with you. If you don't understand language it is a waste of time. One is a comparison and the other is a statement of declaration. And yes the Bible has metaphors and declarations.
A metaphor is a comparison. One statement is a metaphor, "I am a door". A declaratory statement of fact is not a metaphor. Declaratory statement of fact is, "this is my (fill in the blank)".
Apparently, in your world God was making a metaphor when He said about Jesus, "This is my son." Jesus isn't really God's son. He is an enlightened man who is like a son to me. So continue to make your silly posts about rules of language are not different in communicating differing concepts.
With your silly statements, you just keep on proving it is a waste of time to discuss Scripture with you. So I graciously accept your offered proof of the uselessness of discussing Scriptural interpretations with you.
|
So, you take everything in the bible literally, do you?
Earth calling, Hcap. Are you listening to ShowMe. He insists on taking all statements in the bible literally (of course when it suits him). 
So, then, we're back to square one with your literal interpretation because this means that Jesus Christ was LITERALLY a SINNER!  He literally broke the Law of Moses, Mr. Literalist! That Law literally forbids the drinking of blood, which Jesus did and he led others into the same sin with him.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 07:15 PM
|
#15563
|
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boxcar
Wait a minute! But I thought the scientific method applied to historical people, places and events?
|
What part of "First, science would want to test the claim that David and Solomon even existed" don't you get?
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 07:55 PM
|
#15564
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
I said:
Quote:
|
Regarding men sinning as Paul said it is due to our will being weakened, I do what I don't want to do and not do what I want to do. Paul knows through his intellect, reason what he should do, but the will can not perfectly follow the intellect. Our will, is only part of our nature (essence, being) and is not are whole nature or being.
|
boxcar agreed by saying : Hear that everyone boxcar agreed with me that man's nature is not totally depraved, by agreeing the will, our weakened part, is the reason for man sinning and the will is not our total nature or being.
I can play your childlike games, exemplified by your above post 15662, too. And you want to sit at the adult table and be taken seriously. 
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
Last edited by Show Me the Wire; 11-21-2014 at 08:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 08:39 PM
|
#15565
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Actor
What part of "First, science would want to test the claim that David and Solomon even existed" don't you get?
|
And just what does science stick into the test tube to test?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 08:49 PM
|
#15566
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
This ground has been covered. That "if" is a non-existent "if". Scripture doesn't assert that Jesus drank his own blood, by sharing in the cup after the blessing. In fact it is the opposite, after the blessing he immediately gave the cup to the apostles to partake and share.
|
Very, very lame argument. He gave the cup to them first which they all passed around and He drank last from it.
"I will not drink of the FRUIT of the VINE AGAIN until....
He drank wine. Period. That is what the passage says. He did not say, "I will not drink my blood again." Fruit of the Vine = wine. Probably not Mogen David, but wine nonetheless.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 08:50 PM
|
#15567
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire
I said:
boxcar agreed by saying :
Hear that everyone boxcar agreed with me that man's nature is not totally depraved, by agreeing the will, our weakened part, is the reason for man sinning and the will is not our total nature or being.
I can play your childlike games, exemplified by your above post 15662, too. And you want to sit at the adult table and be taken seriously. |
You're a liar. You omitted the rest of my post on which I expanded my "correct". Since ALL of man's faculties are depraved, then man is totally depraved.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 09:19 PM
|
#15568
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boxcar
You're a liar. You omitted the rest of my post on which I expanded my "correct". Since ALL of man's faculties are depraved, then man is totally depraved.
|
And you didn't? That is why I said your games are childish.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2014, 09:24 PM
|
#15569
|
|
Quintessential guru
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 11,254
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boxcar
Very, very lame argument. He gave the cup to them first which they all passed around and He drank last from it.
"I will not drink of the FRUIT of the VINE AGAIN until....
He drank wine. Period. That is what the passage says. He did not say, "I will not drink my blood again." Fruit of the Vine = wine. Probably not Mogen David, but wine nonetheless. |
I suggest you read this site:
http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/20...ing-his-blood/
Your question about violating Mosaic Law is answered. If you don't agree to bad. However consider your question answered.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2014, 12:35 AM
|
#15570
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,701
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boxcar
The primary definition to "eternal" is having infinite duration. You should look before you leap. Has your universe always existed? Is your universe self-existent?
|
the definition of eternal is inextricable linked to "time", infinite is not."You" altered my post changing infinite to eternal.A laughable straw-man BC.
1in·fi·nite adjective \ˈin-fə-nət\
: having no limits
: extremely large or great
1eter·nal adjective \i-ˈtər-nəl\
: having no beginning and no end in time : lasting forever
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
