Re[TruthTalk] Slithering? Hmmm.

[michael douglas]

Michael D: I find Dave H's words below to be very interesting in the light of former LDS contributor, Blainer's seeming inability to grasp the simplest of truths, while proudly declaring his teaching role in the LDS organisation. If these are the folks who educate the LDSers, then it sure places Dave H's  words below in perspective. (Not that it tells something that most won't already know).

Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

DAVEH:  Not from you!

Duh!

DAVEH:  Yeah....Duh!  You can't even quote me correctly, so why should I think you have the truth?

This explains everything!

DAVEH:  Yes it does, Izzy.  You your mind is made up, so it doesn't matter what I say, you are going to interpret it incorrectly.  I believe you've done the same thing with your understanding of the Bible.  It gives a message, and due to your Protestant biases you've interpreted it incorrectly.  So.....why should I believe what you think to be "truth"!

(Excuse me for thinking otherwise!)

DAVEH:  There is no excuse for deliberately misleading people about what I've said, and about what I believe, Izzy.  If you are in TT to spread mistruths, then you are a part of the problem.  And what is that 'problem'?......the perception that TT is a well of truth.  How can that be when you have corrupted it so!  No Izzy, if anything.....it seems you've poisoned the well with your inaccurate portrayal of me.

 

>From: "Michael Douglas" >

Blainer's words:

However, if she had children younger than Jesus,

why did the Lord dedicate her to the care and keeping of John the apostle as he was being crucified. This is strong evidence???  he had no children except Jesus, which also indicates the  account of her taking a vow of perpetual virginity?? was true.

 

Michael D: Do you now admit that This strong evidence is indeed error??? (I really want a direct answer) 

... It is amazing how folks come up with their doctrines...

I would submit, it shows great flaws in pursuing Biblical understanding... You show that you are willing to accept very spurious arguments and sources to contradict simple bible truths, reading into the scriptures things that they do not say, and things that contradict what they do say. This indeed is amazing, but unfortunately consistent with LDS practice as evidenced here on TT.

 

This is where the fall back to ...as far as it is translated correctly..., and the ...parts that are left out...  escape hatches holds its greatest value for those who use it.

 

I observed with some amusement as this same thing happened with your baptism argument. You said Jesus said one had to be baptized to enter the kingdom, when He said no such thing. You automatically assumed that water means baptism and readily read that into the verse without giving it a second thought, the same way you read strong evidence into your assertions above. What you end up doing is that in order to make the Bible say what you want to assert God means, is to use sources external to the Bible to assert it and as in the Mary example, above, end up contradicting the Bible to say what you want to assert. Can you see the flaw there?

 

As I have often stated on this forum, once something is established by two or three witnesses in the Bible, nothing that is contradictory to, or inconsistent with, it can ever, ever be the truth.  Please see your statement below as well.  Now, can we agree on that?

 

>Blainer) The Protavangelion makes it clear that Joseph was an older

>widower, who had children before he married Mary. Naturally, they would

>have been thought of as being Jesus' brethren. This is exactly??? what the

>scriptures say--Is not he the brother of so-and-so, along with some sisters? Do you see how you come up with your representation of ...exactly... what the scriptures say? Which has been so easily refuted. Remember you say that you teach others.....

If you take time to consider these things, you should be terrified at your propensity for error, and be desparate to review your entire claims to salvation and your whole basis for discerning truth. Glenn advised you to do this before. The evidence today, if you are intellectually honest, should drive you to your knees and a thorough revamping of your belief system.

 

Now, can we agree on that?

 

P.S. cf. Glens earlier post reacting to your position that so many writings are inspired, yet left out of the Bible.

P.P.S   I do hope some light breaks through to you today, Blainer. Your soul depends on it.

---

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here

> >On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:39:21 -0400 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >writes: > > Blaine wrote: > > > The standard wisdom basically says Mary had children from > > > Joseph after she gave birth to the Lord. It is even in my Bible > > > Dictionary. However, if she had children younger than Jesus, > > > why did the Lord dedicate her to the care and keeping of John > > > the apostle as he was being crucified. This is strong evidence??? > > > he had no children except Jesus, which also indicates the > > > account of her taking a vow of perpetual virginity?? was true. Poor Joseph... > > Please read below... > > Reasons why Jesus would charge John to take care of his mother: > > > > 1. If his siblings were younger, rather than older as you suggest, > > then it > > would be more likely, not less likely, that Jesus would want someone > > older, > > like John, to care for her. > > > > 2. The Biblical evidence is that the brothers of Jesus did not > > believe upon > > him at the time of his crucifixion. Evidently, it took them seeing > > him > > risen from the dead to believe. > > > > 3. John was the most beloved and trusted disciple of Jesus. He is > > called > > the disciple whom Jesus loved. Even if Mary were being cared for, > > it is > > natural that Jesus would want his closest and most beloved follower > > to take > > special care of his mother. > >Blainer) The Protavangelion makes it clear that Joseph was an older >wid >From: "Michael Douglas" > Blainer's words: However, if she had children younger than Jesus, why did the Lord dedicate her to the care and keeping of John the apostle as he was being crucified. This is strong evidence???  he had no children except Jesus, which also indicates the  account of her taking a vow of perpetual virginity?? was true.   Michael D: Do you now admit that This strong evidence is indeed error??? (I really want a direct answer)  ... It is amazing how folks come up with their doctrines... I would submit, it shows great flaws in pursuing Biblical understanding... You show that you are willing to accept very spurious arguments and sources to contradict simple bible truths, reading into the scriptures things that they do not say, and things that contradict what they do say. This indeed is amazing, but unfortunately consistent with LDS practice as evidenced here on TT.   This is where the fall back to ...as far as it is translated correctly..., and the ...parts that are left out...  escape hatches holds its greatest value for those who use it.   I observed with some amusement as this same thing happened with your baptism argument. You said Jesus said one had to be baptized to enter the kingdom, when He said no such thing. You automatically assumed that water means baptism and readily read that into the verse without giving it a second thought, the same way you read strong evidence into your assertions above. What you end up doing is that in order to make the Bible say what you want to assert God means, is to use sources external to the Bible to assert it and as in the Mary example, above, end up contradicting the Bible to say what you want to assert. Can you see the flaw there?   As I have often stated on this forum, once something is established by two or three witnesses in the Bible, nothing that is contradictory to, or inconsistent with, it can ever, ever be the truth.  Please see your statement below as well.  Now, can we agree on that?   >Blainer) The Protavangelion makes it clear that Joseph was an older >widower, who had children before he married Mary. Naturally, they would >have been thought of as being Jesus' brethren. This is exactly??? what the >scriptures say--Is not he the brother of so-and-so, along with some sisters? Do you see how you come up with your representation of ...exactly... what the scriptures say? Which has been so easily refuted. Remember you say that you teach others..... If you take time to consider these things, you should be terrified at your propensity for error, and be desparate to review your entire claims to salvation and your whole basis for discerning truth. Glenn advised you to do this before. The evidence today, if you are intellectually honest, should drive you to your knees and a thorough revamping of your belief system.   Now, can we agree on that?   P.S. cf. Glens earlier post reacting to your position that so many writings are inspired, yet left out of the Bible. P.P.S   I do hope some light breaks through to you today, Blainer. Your soul depends on it. Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here > >On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:39:21 -0400 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >writes: > > Blaine wrote: > > > The standard wisdom basically says Mary had children from > > > Joseph after she gave birth to the Lord. It is even in my Bible > > > Dictionary. However, if she had children younger than Jesus, > > > why did the Lord dedicate her to the care and keeping of John > > > the apostle as he was being crucified. This is strong evidence??? > > > he had no children except Jesus, which also indicates the > > > account of her taking a vow of perpetual virginity?? was true. Poor Joseph... > > Please read below... > > Reasons why Jesus would charge John to take care of his mother: > > > > 1. If his siblings were younger, rather than older as you suggest, > > then it > > would be more likely, not less likely, that Jesus would want someone > > older, > > like John, to care for her. > > > > 2. The Biblical evidence is that the brothers of Jesus did not > > believe upon > > him at the time of his crucifixion. Evidently, it took them seeing > > him > > risen from the dead to believe. > > > > 3. John was the most beloved and trusted disciple of Jesus. He is > > called > > the disciple whom Jesus loved. Even if Mary were being cared for, > > it is > > natural that Jesus would want his closest and most beloved follower > > to take > > special care of his mother. > >Blainer) The Protavangelion makes it clear that Joseph was an older >widower, who had children before he married Mary. Naturally, they would >have been thought of as being Jesus' brethren. This is exactly what the >scriptures say--Is not he the brother of so-and-so, along with some >sisters? > Also, Jesus died at age 33, so it seems that if Joseph had been a >younger man, he would have been alive at the time of the crucifixion. >But apparently he was not alive, otherwise there would have been no need >to call upon John to take care of her. >But even if they (the brothers and sisters) had been Mary's offspring, >who is to say at least one of them would not have been old enough to >assume responsibility for their mother? Mary could easily have had >another child within a year of Jesus' birth, making him/her 32 yrs old. >A Jewish man began (begins) adulthood at age 13, and could (can) enter >the priesthood at age 30. If Mary had even had a thirteen-year old son, >he would have been expected to assume some responsibil;ity for his >mother. But it easily could have been that she had a son in his >thirties. > > Michael D:   Does anyone think that all of this make sense in the light of the fact that Jesus is called Mary's firstborn Son in the scripture? If she only had one son,  it would have been said her only Son?  Also, the scriptures said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. One will have to wonder if Mary was barren subsequent to bringing forth Jesus.  Of course, some still hold to the notion of her being ever virgin, don't they? The Bible clearly does not support that view, else Joseph was a self-made eunuch or died soon after Jesus' birth both of which we are easily disproved by scripture. Hence the rejection of these so-called inspired books as scripture. ower, who had children before he married Mary. Naturally, they would >have been thought of as being Jesus' brethren. This is exactly what the >scriptures say--Is not he the brother of so-and-so, along with some >sisters? > Also, Jesus died at age 33, so it seems that if Joseph had been a >younger man, he would have been alive at the time of the crucifixion. >But apparently he was not alive, otherwise there would have been no need >to call upon John to take care of her. >But even if they (the brothers and sisters) had been Mary's offspring, >who is to say at least one of them would not have been old enough to >assume responsibility for their mother? Mary could easily have had >another child within a year of Jesus' birth, making him/her 32 yrs old. >A Jewish man began (begins) adulthood at age 13, and could (can) enter >the priesthood at age 30. If Mary had even had a thirteen-year old son, >he would have been expected to assume some responsibil;ity for his >mother. But it easily could have been that she had a son in his >thirties. > > Michael D:   Does anyone think that all of this make sense in the light of the fact that Jesus is called Mary's firstborn Son in the scripture? If she only had one son,  it would have been said her only Son?  Also, the scriptures said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. One will have to wonder if Mary was barren subsequent to bringing forth Jesus.  Of course, some still hold to the notion of her being ever virgin, don't they? The Bible clearly does not support that view, else Joseph was a self-made eunuch or died soon after Jesus' birth both of which we are easily disproved by scripture. Hence the rejection of these so-called inspired books as scripture.

---

Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience