Regarding Knight and Itwillend

[Poisonshady313]

It promises to be an interesting debate, to be sure... and I like the one on one style. I'm opening this particular thread because I have a feeling there are, and will be a few comments I would have responded to if I were a part of the thread.

I applaud TheKnight for this:

"We could stipulate that these verses don't mean Earth, and that would be a clever way to run from the argument, but if you're going to make that postulation then the burden of proof rests on you." (emphasis mine)

A straight forward reading of the verses don't give any hint that the promises contained therein have anything to do with conditions of the afterlife.

So before Itwillend dared to demand that TheKnight "Demonstrate to me why these verses can not be talking about Heaven, or a period of existence after Judgment Day", he should have, in my opinion, first demonstrated why he felt all those verses did talk about the afterlife.

 

[TheKnight]

He keeps saying things that don't have anything to do with our discussion........and for some reason I forgot that some Christians have this tendency to read verses differently than the words that are actually in that verse...

 

[Poisonshady313]

Here is what my response would be if the thread were a general debate thread.

From the quickness of your answers, I can assume you are not giving much thought to anything I am saying. As such what is the point of this discussion. I am considering everything you said, and have asked you to demonstrate to me why it is you conclude what you do.

You have been asked the same, and have not yet done so.

Moving on, you say we are talking about Jesus being the Messiah. You then presented information about peace on earth.


YOU brought it up, I was simply establishing ground to say there will NEVER be peace on Earth by citing many verses. You then say "What are you doing?" As if I am the one that introduced "peace on Earth" as a qualifier of the Messiah.

You brought it up, so why can we not discuss the aspects that surround peace on Earth?

That's not what you're discussing. You're discussing peace on NOT earth (i.e. afterlife). He'd love it if you discussed the aspects that surround peace on earth... but thus far, you are avoiding it.

Or were we suppose to just see your verses and accept them without question? Why have a discussion then? What is the point of offering verses and subject matter if we can't discuss them?

Again, maybe this should have been a debate about what is and is not a messianic prophecy, and what messianic prophecies mean.

Yes, the focus is on Jesus as the Messiah or not the Messiah, you introduce verses to say he can't be the Messiah because verses x,y, and z say peace will be on Earth. I then challenge those verses, and you say I have lost focus????????????????????????

You brought a substandard challenge. You demanded that TheKnight explain why it's not the way you see it, without yourself justifying how you see it, given that the text doesn't say what you've been saying. Bringing in additional verses, some of which aren't even messianic, is a distraction from the conversation you were supposed to be having.

You complained about TheKnight moving on without hashing out the first issue... but you have a problem hashing out what he's bringing without throwing in new stuff to the mix.

He's not making it complicated to have a discussion. You are.

It seems you really don't want to see what I have to say, and you are not open to looking at different things.

He told you that if you wish to assume a verse has a particular meaning, the burden is on you to make your case. You have avoided doing so.

 

[Poisonshady313]

He keeps saying things that don't have anything to do with our discussion........and for some reason I forgot that some Christians have this tendency to read verses differently than the words that are actually in that verse...

Perhaps the two of you could afford to spend a post or two establishing a list of verses, accepted by both of you, with the following conditions:

1. That the verses on the list are indeed Messianic prophecies
2. What the fulfillment of those verses mean.

I think that's the necessary common ground before you have the discussion you were meant to have.

If the creation of said list is in itself a debate... then perhaps you'll need a formal topic change, with the expectation that you'll return to the original topic after you've compiled this list.

 

[TheKnight]

Perhaps the two of you could afford to spend a post or two establishing a list of verses, accepted by both of you, with the following conditions:

1. That the verses on the list are indeed Messianic prophecies
2. What the fulfillment of those verses mean.

I think that's the necessary common ground before you have the discussion you were meant to have.

If the creation of said list is in itself a debate... then perhaps you'll need a formal topic change, with the expectation that you'll return to the original topic after you've compiled this list.

I agree. We should probably take the time to look at which prophecies we agree on...however, I have a feeling that that venue would lead us nowhere.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I agree. We should probably take the time to look at which prophecies we agree on...however, I have a feeling that that venue would lead us nowhere.

I personally feel it would be a more eventful one on one debate.


Or there's providing a great big (complete) list of the reasons (in some detail) of why Jesus isn't the messiah.

But going verse by verse, it's hard to see the big picture... and since the big picture you see is different from itwillend's big picture, any small detail will be seen in radically different ways.

And of course you spend time talking about whether a verse is talking about this world or the next.

 

[TheKnight]

I personally feel it would be a more eventful one on one debate.


Or there's providing a great big (complete) list of the reasons (in some detail) of why Jesus isn't the messiah.

But going verse by verse, it's hard to see the big picture... and since the big picture you see is different from itwillend's big picture, any small detail will be seen in radically different ways.

And of course you spend time talking about whether a verse is talking about this world or the next.

I think he understands that if he is going to claim something that requires us to go beyond the actual words of the verse then he's going to need a reason for that. Quoting another unrelated verse isn't going to do it...

 

[Poisonshady313]

I think he understands that if he is going to claim something that requires us to go beyond the actual words of the verse then he's going to need a reason for that. Quoting another unrelated verse isn't going to do it...

I don't think he does. Quoting another unrelated verse is exactly his method.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I don't think he does. Quoting another unrelated verse is exactly his method.

I don't have a method. I just accept the bible is full of figurative and literal language. We can't conclude something is literal or figurative until we compare the verses with the rest of the scripture to be sure.

If we don't study this way, we end up deciding what is figurative and literal on our own.
But by studying the way I am suggesting, also means if we can't understand something to be either, because there isn't enough information, it is best to not guess, but pray for wisdom.

I am not here to be the punching bag, I am trying to have a mature discussion. It will take some time to work out the kinks, but as long as Knight is willing, I am too.

I am sure we will both learn something. However if I find it is all just an attempt to beat up on the Christian of course I won't participate. I don't think that is what Knight is intending, which is why I invited him to talk.

Thanks for your suggestions in this thread. :yes:

 

[Poisonshady313]

I don't have a method. I just accept the bible is full of figurative and literal language. We can't conclude something is literal or figurative until we compare the verses with the rest of the scripture to be sure.

I believe to do that, it's best to examine whole chapters, perhaps even the one before and after... but to chase after a verse that talks about everlasting something in order to respond to a verse which says "they shall beat their swords into plowshares" serves as a distraction.

I'm glad that you eventually came back to talk about the verse from Isaiah 2... I think you should have done that 10 posts ago.

If we don't study this way, we end up deciding what is figurative and literal on our own.

Which is why you should have demonstrated why you believed the verses were figurative, instead of demanding that TheKnight showed otherwise, because a straight reading of it suggests a literal understanding. When you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

Instead, you may have made the mistake of taking a figurative verse and applying it to a literal verse, claiming "not everything is literal". I believe that's a logical fallacy called "biased sample". Like you went to the ocean, filled a cup with water, saw that the cup had no fish in it, and declared that the ocean has no fish.


I'm sure TheKnight knows and understands that not all the verses in the bible are literal... but you should use the verses in their own context to figure out whether they're literal or not... using unrelated verses serves as a distraction, not a discussion.

I am not here to be the punching bag, I am trying to have a mature discussion.

I wish you would do that by responding to the things theknight says, instead of accusing him of being immature or pointing fingers.

I am sure we will both learn something. However if I find it is all just an attempt to beat up on the Christian of course I won't participate. I don't think that is what Knight is intending, which is why I invited him to talk.

He's been trying to have a straightforward, reasonable, friendly conversation. Things got complicated when you went of on a wild tangent regarding an application of the verses you have yet to show any support for.

I know I'm just a spectator... but I really and truly believe that hammering out this mutually agreeable list of actual messianic prophecies and their meaning (whether literal or figurative) is essential to a meaningful debate about this topic.

For example... .you keep brining up Isaiah 9:6. A verse that doesn't belong, in any way whatsoever, in a discussion regarding the Messiah.

But you wouldn't know that because you choose to assume the meaning of the verse rather than figure out, collaboratively, whether or not it is relevant.

If you feel that's what TheKnight has been doing with his verses... then do your part to show how you read the verses, and why you figure they are literal or figurative... instead of demanding that he show his position without you showing yours.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

but you should use the verses in their own context to figure out whether they're literal or not... using unrelated verses serves as a distraction, not a discussion.

I need to clarifiy with you, I am not suggesting we compare verses with just "any" verse in the scripture, but when we have verses throughout the OT that talk about the same events, people, or places, we must compare to make sure we are understanding what is in view. So by that reasoning I disagree with you that we should let a verse be the only method by which we understand it. For that matter the whole chapter in some cases has to be compared to other chapters in the scriptures, because they might be discussing very similar things.

Like I said, it should get smoother.
Thanks again.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I need to clarifiy with you, I am not suggesting we compare verses with just "any" verse in the scripture, but when we have verses throughout the OT that talk about the same events, people, or places, we must compare to make sure we are understanding what is in view. So by that reasoning I disagree with you that we should let a verse be the only method by which we understand it. For that matter the whole chapter in some cases has to be compared to other chapters in the scriptures, because they might be discussing very similar things.

Like I said, it should get smoother.
Thanks again.

Unless you bring in verses like Isaiah 9:6, which are totally and completely irrelevant to any discussion regarding the messiah.


I believe there either needs to be an established list of relevant verses that you can both agree upon... unless the debate needs to be about which verses are relevant messianic prophecies.

 

[Poisonshady313]

You could be the sort of person (I'm not making any assertions... I don't know you that well) who might simply be contrary to every view TheKnight has... which is to say, any verse he regards as literal, you'll view as figurative... and any verse he regards as figurative, you'll regard as literal... and while he uses the text in its appropriate context, you'll demand to know why he doesn't see it in a way you show no support for.


Another reason why I think this list of relevant verses is important.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

This is a good point. I assumed Isaiah 9 6 was understood as the Messiah.
Clearly you feel it is not. So yes it may be good to decide what each of us consider to be Messiah scripture.

Thanks.

 

[TheKnight]

I don't have a method. I just accept the bible is full of figurative and literal language. We can't conclude something is literal or figurative until we compare the verses with the rest of the scripture to be sure.

If we don't study this way, we end up deciding what is figurative and literal on our own.
But by studying the way I am suggesting, also means if we can't understand something to be either, because there isn't enough information, it is best to not guess, but pray for wisdom.

If we cannot figure out whether a verse is figurative or literal (and I addressed this in the thread...from my POV there is a literal and figurative meaning of every verse in the Tanakh) then we can only make a conclusion based on what the verse says. After all, we do have to make a conclusion. And if there's no reason to consider a verse as figurative than we should avoid labeling it as such.

 

[TheKnight]

This is a good point. I assumed Isaiah 9 6 was understood as the Messiah.
Clearly you feel it is not. So yes it may be good to decide what each of us consider to be Messiah scripture.

Thanks.

That could take forever...I was a Christian once (and on the path to ministry) and I already know all the hundreds of verses that the church uses as Messianic. Not to mention that out of the verses that we both agree are Messianic, there are still hundreds of them....

I think it would be best if we dealt with the Messianic-ness of each verse as they arise. I responded regarding Isaiah 9:6 and I explained why I don't see it as Messianic.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

from my POV there is a literal and figurative meaning of every verse in the Tanakh)

Ezekail Ch 10
"12": And their whole body, and their backs, and their hands, and their wings, and the wheels, were full of eyes round about, even the wheels that they four had.
"13": As for the wheels, it was cried unto them in my hearing, O wheel.
"14": And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.

Please help me with the literal view of this, as to date I have never heard one that is remotely credible. I am just trying to establish a base for us to work from.

Thanks.

 

[TheKnight]

Please help me with the literal view of this, as to date I have never heard one that is remotely credible. I am just trying to establish a base for us to work from.

Thanks.

That and surrounding chapters are discussing a vision that Ezekiel had.

Consider this link.


It's a description of the beings he saw in the upper realms.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

That and surrounding chapters are discussing a vision that Ezekiel had.

Consider this link.


It's a description of the beings he saw in the upper realms.

Listen Knight I will absolutely consider that link. that is what I have been sayng all along, I will look at and consider anything.

However I just pointed out that there are verses in the bible that are not to be taken literally. Which you stated earlier all of it can be taken literally and figuratively.

So here you say it was a vision. OK I agree with you, but that just goes to show that not everything is literal, which leaves open the possibility that other verses we "think" are simple and plain literal, might not be. You won't even go down that road though, so I am not sure what the point is.

 

[TheKnight]

Listen Knight I will absolutely consider that link. that is what I have been sayng all along, I will look at and consider anything.

However I just pointed out that there are verses in the bible that are not to be taken literally. Which you stated earlier all of it can be taken literally and figuratively.

So here you say it was a vision. OK I agree with you, but that just goes to show that not everything is literal, which leaves open the possibility that other verses we "think" are simple and plain literal, might not be. You won't even go down that road though, so I am not sure what the point is.

I believe that this verse is literal. It's literally what he saw....