Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest

Evolutionist Professor Goes Ballistic

108 posts in this topic

 

Why do you assume I am parroting?  Maybe, I did my homework and felt they had a stronger argument.

 

Okay, then.  Show the internal textual indicators where the author indicates that he intends to be taken allegorically.

 

That is a fair challenge but you are implying that Genesis, as 100% historical, is the default position and the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise.  I think we each have to prove our position.

 

You implied that the ancient Jews and prophets took Genesis as historical.  That doesn't prove historicity.  The ancient greeks believed there was a Mt. Olympus.  Does that make Mt. Olympus historical?  Would a trained historian accept your claim as proof.

 

You said Jesus mentioned Adam & Eve so Adam & Eve must have existed.  You need to prove 1) That Jesus took A&E as historical when He mentioned it.  I can mention Dick Tracy to make a point about detective work but I know Dick Tracy doesn't exist.  2)  That Jesus actually mentioned A&E.  To do that, you need to prove the bible as a 100% historical reliable text.  The gospel writer may have included Jesus in his parable.  He may have put the words in Jesus's mouth to give his writing more authority.  He may have misquoted Jesus.

 

For clarification, let me ask you.  Is Genesis 100% factual?  Is any segment allegorical, i.e. the talking snake, the tree A&E were supposed to say away from?

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do believe Jesus's mission was salvation but not to be a substitutionary sacrifice(He took the punishment we deserve).

 

Salvation from what, then?   If there is no sin then what precisely did we need salvation from?

 

Evidently, it is safe to say that when you read the Bible, you don't believe what you read in it, right?  Here is what the Bible says:

 

And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

(Heb 10:10-14)

 

According to you, this passage is wrong.  Why is it wrong?

 

As I said in previous posts, the cross represents the path to personal transformation and freedom from the bondage of sin.

 

How exactly does that work if Jesus didn't for sin as you have previously stated?   Can you work out just how you arrived at that conclusion?  What do you mean by personal transformation?   What is the bondage to sin mean in your estimation?

 

Lets put the book of Hebrews aside.  My point is that there is no indication of sustitutionary sacrifice in the OT, there is no indication from God's actions or words in the OT that He expects substitutionary atonement and that His solution for the sins of the world would be the killing of His Son in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins and it had no effect on more serious sins such as stealing someone's camel.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are you a Messianic Jew? 

 

Yes.

 

Why do you assume I am parroting?  Maybe, I did my homework and felt they had a stronger argument.

 

Okay, then.  Show the internal textual indicators where the author indicates that he intends to be taken allegorically.

 

 

What evidence do you have that Genesis is 100% factual besides so and so believed it?  Even someone as conservative as NT Wright realizes Genesis is not a factual account.

 

OH please... Don't get me started on NT  Wright.  He is hardly a conservative and one of the most dangerous, antisemitic theologians out there.  If you can't provide the internal textual indicators that show the text of Gen. 1-3 need to be taken allegorically, the text must be literal by default.  I don't have to prove anything.  If you can't show the evidence for your claims, the text stands as written.

 

I highly doubt it.  Archaeology can only go so far as to what it can say.  It's can say very little to textual criticism.  I'm beginning to doubt you're as lettered as you appear.  You're arrogance and strong bias is very evident.

 

Sorry, but they are finding all kinds extra-biblical documents dated to the wrong period if the DH were correct.

 

 

Maybe we should turn to something that is less a matter of opinion.  Prophesy.  How about Isaiah 9:6?  Is the subject Jesus?

 

I assume you claim that it is not talking about Jesus, right?   I suppose you will want to explain why it it is some other king or something.

 

Isaiah 9:6 King James Translation: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a child is given:  and the government shall be upon his shoulder:  and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

 

Correct translation from Hebrew:  "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed upon his shoulder, and He, the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father/Patron, called his name: Ruler of Peace."

 

Isaiah was speaking about someone already born and G-d shall name him Ruler of Peace.

 

Interesting take on that.   Now how about a dose of truth???

 

The problem with your exegesis is that you only quoted part of the prophecy.   The entire prophecy says:

 

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

(Isa 9:6-7)

 

Specific parts of this prophetic word preclude your attempt to make this about someone other than Jesus.    It is a well known fact that during the Middle Ages, RASHI was one of the many Rabbis who were revising Jewish thought and were removing from Messianic prophecies any references to the Messiah they contained and reinterpreted Messianic prophecies to mean something else in an attempt to blunt the ability of Christians to use Messianic prophecies to show Jesus in the Old Testament.

 

So using Jewish commentaries that purposely try to hide the Messianic nature  of Messianic prophecy is a waste of time and bandwidth.  You might as well have just posted, "blah, blah, blah" for what its worth to post a bunch of stuff by Jewish Rabbis.

 

There is NO way that "El Gibbour" can reference anyone other than God in this particular passage.  The context will not allow for it.  Context is far more important than word meaning.  How a phrase or word is used is vital to understanding the text.   You cannot get "strong man" out of El Gibbour.  No one honest about the text would ever translate it that way.

 

Avi-Ad (Everlasting Father) refers to Jesus as "father of eternity."  It is not claiming that Jesus is the Father.  It uses the word "father" in a nonpaternal way, much the same way we use it to refer to Alexander Graham Bell as the "father of modern telecommunications."

 

Even more, in verse 7 of this prophecy, the person who is being called "Mighty God, and the father of eternity is also a descendent of David who will be king and His kingdom will never end.  In fact, it is emphasized as being "from this time and forevermore."  

 

It parallels what the angel told Mary in Luke 1:31-33:

 

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

(Luk 1:31-33)

 

The angel says of Jesus:

 

1.  He will be called the Son of God (Is. 9:6)

2.  He will be a direct descendent of King David (Is. 9:7)

3.  God the Father will give Jesus the throne of David (Is. 9:7)

4.  He will reign over the House of Jacob forever (Is. 9:7)

5.  Of His Kingdom there will be no end (Is. 9:7)

 

 

Jesus is the Son of God and He is the descendent of David.  The Angel speaks to Mary and almost recites the Isaiah prophecy word for word.  So your position really has no biblical basis in truth or reality.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I do believe Jesus's mission was salvation but not to be a substitutionary sacrifice(He took the punishment we deserve).

 

Salvation from what, then?   If there is no sin then what precisely did we need salvation from?

 

Evidently, it is safe to say that when you read the Bible, you don't believe what you read in it, right?  Here is what the Bible says:

 

And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

(Heb 10:10-14)

 

According to you, this passage is wrong.  Why is it wrong?

 

As I said in previous posts, the cross represents the path to personal transformation and freedom from the bondage of sin.

 

How exactly does that work if Jesus didn't for sin as you have previously stated?   Can you work out just how you arrived at that conclusion?  What do you mean by personal transformation?   What is the bondage to sin mean in your estimation?

 

Lets put the book of Hebrews aside. 

 

No, let's not put it aside.  The passage from Hebrews clearly shows that Jesus is an offering for sin.   Explain why that passage is wrong.

 

My point is that there is no indication of sustitutionary sacrifice in the OT, there is no indication from God's actions or words in the OT that He expects substitutionary atonement and that His solution for the sins of the world would be the killing of His Son in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins and it had no effect on more serious sins such as stealing someone's camel.

 

That is absolutely incorrect on all counts. In the book of Hebrews which lays out the New Testament's case for the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ for the sins of man, it recounts the death of Jesus in the light of Yom Kippur in which two goats were used and one was sacrificed for the sins of the people and there is no indication that it was for unintentional sins.

 

Furthermore, even if certain sin offerings were for unintentional sins it still speaks of a substitutionary sacrifice. If the animal didn't die then the person had to die.  The animal died in his place.

 

I would also add that you don't understand the sin problem at all.  Man's sin problem is not about what he does as much as it is about what He is.  Man is a sinner by default.  The Bible teaches that Jesus' death on the cross performed a two fold work.  His blood was shed for the forgiveness of all of our sins AND His death paid the price for our sin condition that separates us from God.  Jesus' death on the cross was to satisfy God's justice, His just claim that we deserve death.  

 

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

(Rom 5:6-9)

 

That passage clearly lays out the biblical truth that Jesus died for us and that He died to save us from God's wrath against us which was a just wrath that we deserved.  Jesus bore God's wrath.

 

Isaiah 53, speaking of Jesus says this:

 

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

(Isa 53:4-6)

 

He carried OUR grief and OUR sorrows.  He was pierced for OUR transgressions, crushed for OUR iniquities and he was punished for OUR peace.  The Lord has laid upon Him the Iniquity of US ALL.

 

It is clearly a substitutionary act taking place on the cross of Jesus.   He died for our sins. 

 

Sorry, but your views are simply not credible or biblical.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

these people

 

generalizations are bad

 

 

 

 

As for motive, I will be sure to hyper analyze your motivation for every thread you start from now on.  We'll see how that works for you.

 

As Hippie advised, let's keep this about the topic and not about each other.

 

 

It isn't about "each other," and that would be an ad hominem.  If you can question the motive of a person for starting a thread, I can do the exact same thing to you.

 

I will ask again, if this person was so sure they were "right," why would they need to behave in this way?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why do you assume I am parroting?  Maybe, I did my homework and felt they had a stronger argument.

 

Okay, then.  Show the internal textual indicators where the author indicates that he intends to be taken allegorically.

 

That is a fair challenge but you are implying that Genesis, as 100% historical, is the default position and the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise.  I think we each have to prove our position.

You are the one claiming that the text of Genesis 1 is allegorical and not meant to be understood literally.  That is a textual argument requiring textual evidence from within the given text itself.  I want you to show me the evidence IN the text that demands an allegorical approach.  If you cannot provide those indicators from the text of Gen. 1-3, then the  text is literal by default.  I don't have to prove anything.  I simply have to show that your claims warrant merit or serious consideration.

 

You implied that the ancient Jews and prophets took Genesis as historical.  That doesn't prove historicity.  The ancient greeks believed there was a Mt. Olympus.  Does that make Mt. Olympus historical?  Would a trained historian accept your claim as proof.

 

That's not what i said or implied.  I said that the biblical writers and even Jesus treat them as historical.  I didn't say anything about the Jews believed about the text.  Don't put words in my mouth.

 

 

You said Jesus mentioned Adam & Eve so Adam & Eve must have existed.  You need to prove 1) That Jesus took A&E as historical when He mentioned it.

 

Jesus was making an historical claim about marriage.  Jesus was referencing Adam and Eve in his discussion of marriage with the religious leaders.  There is no reason to suggest that Jesus took them as anything but historical.   The problem here is that you are presuming Adam and Eve are not historical and then projecting your unfounded assumption on to Jesus and then asking me to disprove your presumption.  That is a sloppy line of argumentation.

 

You need to prove the non-historicity of Adam and Eve, absent that, Jesus' can easily be understood as referencing historical people

 

 

For clarification, let me ask you.  Is Genesis 100% factual?  Is any segment allegorical, i.e. the talking snake, the tree A&E were supposed to say away from?

 

 

 

It is 100% factual.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I do believe Jesus's mission was salvation but not to be a substitutionary sacrifice(He took the punishment we deserve).

 

Salvation from what, then?   If there is no sin then what precisely did we need salvation from?

 

Evidently, it is safe to say that when you read the Bible, you don't believe what you read in it, right?  Here is what the Bible says:

 

And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

(Heb 10:10-14)

 

According to you, this passage is wrong.  Why is it wrong?

 

As I said in previous posts, the cross represents the path to personal transformation and freedom from the bondage of sin.

 

How exactly does that work if Jesus didn't for sin as you have previously stated?   Can you work out just how you arrived at that conclusion?  What do you mean by personal transformation?   What is the bondage to sin mean in your estimation?

 

Lets put the book of Hebrews aside. 

 

No, let's not put it aside.  The passage from Hebrews clearly shows that Jesus is an offering for sin.   Explain why that passage is wrong.

 

My point is that there is no indication of sustitutionary sacrifice in the OT, there is no indication from God's actions or words in the OT that He expects substitutionary atonement and that His solution for the sins of the world would be the killing of His Son in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins and it had no effect on more serious sins such as stealing someone's camel.

 

That is absolutely incorrect on all counts. In the book of Hebrews which lays out the New Testament's case for the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ for the sins of man, it recounts the death of Jesus in the light of Yom Kippur in which two goats were used and one was sacrificed for the sins of the people and there is no indication that it was for unintentional sins.

 

Furthermore, even if certain sin offerings were for unintentional sins it still speaks of a substitutionary sacrifice. If the animal didn't die then the person had to die.  The animal died in his place.

 

I would also add that you don't understand the sin problem at all.  Man's sin problem is not about what he does as much as it is about what He is.  Man is a sinner by default.  The Bible teaches that Jesus' death on the cross performed a two fold work.  His blood was shed for the forgiveness of all of our sins AND His death paid the price for our sin condition that separates us from God.  Jesus' death on the cross was to satisfy God's justice, His just claim that we deserve death.  

 

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

(Rom 5:6-9)

 

That passage clearly lays out the biblical truth that Jesus died for us and that He died to save us from God's wrath against us which was a just wrath that we deserved.  Jesus bore God's wrath.

 

Isaiah 53, speaking of Jesus says this:

 

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

(Isa 53:4-6)

 

He carried OUR grief and OUR sorrows.  He was pierced for OUR transgressions, crushed for OUR iniquities and he was punished for OUR peace.  The Lord has laid upon Him the Iniquity of US ALL.

 

It is clearly a substitutionary act taking place on the cross of Jesus.   He died for our sins. 

 

Sorry, but your views are simply not credible or biblical.

 

You don't understand the Yom Kippur sacrifice.  The Suffering Servant in Isaiah is Israel but there is no way I'm going to change your mind.

 

I sure hope I don't become like you.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

these people

 

generalizations are bad

 

 

 

 

As for motive, I will be sure to hyper analyze your motivation for every thread you start from now on.  We'll see how that works for you.

 

As Hippie advised, let's keep this about the topic and not about each other.

 

 

It isn't about "each other," and that would be an ad hominem.  If you can question the motive of a person for starting a thread, I can do the exact same thing to you.

 

I will ask again, if this person was so sure they were "right," why would they need to behave in this way?

 

Would you say that there is some possibility that the professor is generally a gracious man but he came to a boiling point after years of having to explain over and over that there is ample evidence for evolution.  If you aren't willing to accept this as a possibility then how could you call yourself objective?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't understand the Yom Kippur sacrifice. 

 

I sure hope I don't become like you.

 

I understand the Yom Kippur Sacrifice and it was a substitutionary sacrifice for sin whether you have the honesty to admit or not.   I know the truth and yes, you will never change my mind.  I know the Bible as well and it is clear that you can't mount much of a biblical defense of liberal ungodly perspectives.  

 

The Suffering Servant in Isaiah is Israel but there is no way I'm going to change your mind.

 

That is wrong for several reasons.  The Servant is distinct from Israel in this prophecies and the use of pronouns indicates that.  Furthermore, Israel is observing the suffering of the servant in vv. 3-6. 

 

In verse 10 the offering is an "asham" or guilt offering.  Israel cannot possibly be the guilt offering for their own sins.  The guilt or "asham' offering had to be offered in place of the guilty party.  There is no way a guilty person can give himself as an asham offering for his own sins.

 

The servant is dying for someone else's sins if the text is read plainly and honestly.  This is someone dying for someone else.

 

The suffering servant possesses attributes that are not true of Israel.  For one thing the servant is innocent.  He is not dying as sinner.  He is represented by a lamb an innocent animal dying for the guilty in v. 6.   Israel was a  nation always in rebellion.  God used the harshest terms comparing Israel to a harlot.  Israel cannot be an offering for sin because they are not sinless, without spot or blemish.

 

Furthermore, in the Bible Israel always suffers for their own sins and not for anyone else's sins.  God never placed anyone else's sins on Israel.

 

And look at verse 8... "By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?" 

 

If the suffering servant is Israel who are "my people" in verse eight????

 

 

There is just no way that the suffering servant is Israel.  The passage simply won't allow it.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

these people

 

generalizations are bad

 

 

 

 

As for motive, I will be sure to hyper analyze your motivation for every thread you start from now on.  We'll see how that works for you.

 

As Hippie advised, let's keep this about the topic and not about each other.

 

 

It isn't about "each other," and that would be an ad hominem.  If you can question the motive of a person for starting a thread, I can do the exact same thing to you.

 

I will ask again, if this person was so sure they were "right," why would they need to behave in this way?

 

Would you say that there is some possibility that the professor is generally a gracious man but he came to a boiling point after years of having to explain over and over that there is ample evidence for evolution.  If you aren't willing to accept this as a possibility then how could you call yourself objective?

 

If a Christian did that...  If a Christian just reached his "boiling point"  He would be mocked and ridiculed and he would be held up as a "typically intolerant" Christian.  His behavior is inexcusable.  If he couldn't control himself, he should have just walked away.  He wasn't being provoked or pulled into something.  No one was picking a fight with him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0