Uncategorized

Kathy Part 5

Nate

After breaking 1000 comments on the previous thread, I felt it was a good time to start another.

As a reminder, here are some of the most recent outstanding questions for Kathy:

From Laurie:

You said you answered my questions, and wish more questions were asked. Here are some questions that were not addressed.

Matt 23:8 read first

Philemon 1:10
1 Corinthians 4:14-17
1 Corinthians 12:27
2 Timothy 1:11
1 Timothy 2:7
Ephesians 4:11,12

Why is it that messiah says not to be called rabbi or father, but Paul it’s not obedient to this command?

Matt 10:7,8

1 Timothy 5:17,18
1 Corinthians 9:11,12

Messiah says here that he had given freely, go and freely give. Again, Paul is disobedient.

Matt 18:15

Galatians 2:11-14

Messiah said that if you have a problem with your brother, you should deal with it privately. Here Paul lashes out at Peter “before them all”.

Matt 9:10-12

2 Thessalonians 3:6,7

Yahusha said in the passage above that he came to call the sinner to repentance, not the righteous. Why would Paul want to separate from those that actually need him?

From William:

the “evidences” you listed arent real evidences. And since you refuse to look at things that are counter to your current beliefs, how can you honestly speak to me about evidences?

here’s all I’ve seen you provide:

1) martyrs, even though every religion and many non-religions have them.

2) our very existence – which no one knows how that started, but even if you must land on god(s), you must go back to that book of claims to get to jesus.

3) there were miracles, but as it turns out, those dont happen today, and end up being more claims by the same men who claim they speak for god.

4) the fulfilled prophecies we’ve discussed weren’t really prophecies at all, or had to be viewed so figuratively that it’s difficult to show anything precise about them other than location (maybe) in order to claim they’re actually fulfilled.

5) 40 authors taking 1500 years to write the bible. But there’s nothing miraculous about men writing books, editing books, and being inspired to write a book or letter after reading an older book.

In addition to these, I’d like to ask something of both Kathy and Laurie (Matt or Hayden or portal001 (Ryan) can chime in as well):

The Bible defines God as being all-loving, all-merciful, fair, just, etc. It can also be read as promising an eternity in Hell for those who don’t serve him correctly. As a believer, how do you square those two statements?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

954 thoughts on “Kathy Part 5”

  4. @Laurie: I go by Brandon on here, Arch is correct. 🙂 That’s great that you have adopted Judaism and still think Yahusha was the Messiah, I can appreciate your position. Can you explain your issue with meat sacrificed to idols? Also, what is Paul’s single worst misuse of the Tanakh?

    One of the main reasons I’m a Christian is because of Paul’s witness. I reconverted from basically being atheist, so Paul is important to me. On an objective level though, I think it’s difficult to separate Yahusha from Paul. Paul claims to have seen him after the resurrection and was sent by him specifically to preach the gospel. He claims to be an apostle of Christ which in the Greek means one who was sent. The author of Luke-Acts, who was very pro-Temple, also records Paul’s conversion and being sent. So, this author is a carefully-thought Jew who accepted Paul. In addition to the author of Acts accepting Paul, if you accept that Peter wrote the epistles attributed to him, Peter who walked alongside Yahusha also accepted Paul. All of this makes it difficult to accept Yahusha without cutting off a huge about of the “New Testament” including Luke-Acts and the epistles of Peter.

    Like

  5. Brandon, you and I have never “met,” but I have to say you are soooo wrong about Paul. I don’t believe entirely the same as Laurie, but we do see eye-to-eye on his position in the NT. I could go point-by-point of what you have written (as I’m sure she could as well) and show you most of it is “church teachings,” i.e., traditional beliefs.In actuality, Paul was nothing like what Christians believe about him.

    You said it yourself — All of this makes it difficult to accept Yahusha without cutting off a huge *amount* of the “New Testament” …

    Like

  7. “Come on arch! What’s your real name? – What’s the Lone Ranger’s name, Lone? “What’s in a name?”

    Like

  8. “The author of Luke-Acts, who was very pro-Temple, also records Paul’s conversion and being sent. So, this author is a carefully-thought Jew who accepted Paul.”
    Apparently, Brandon, you’re unfamiliar with the the conclusions of the Acts Seminar – do your homework. Stay in school. Don’t do drugs.

    Like

  9. @Nan: what parts of Paul have I gotten wrong? Hit me with your best argument against Paul.

    @Laurie: I have no denomination. When I reconverted I started from scratch and was willing to flush every single doctrine if I found no good reason to accept it. So, my view diverges at some point from pretty much all mainstream denominations and church leaders.

    @Arch: Ha. 🙂

    Like

  10. “Brandon, you and I have never ‘met,'</em" – just look up sycophant, Nan, and you’ll know all you need to know.

    Like

  11. William,

    “By reading it you would have come to better understanding of some of the issues and you’ll be better able to address those points if anyone ever brings them up around you.”

    I already understand the issues William. I’ve given points on “the issues”.. right here.. and no one has been able to argue my points successfully. Anything I don’t know I look up.. and then I respond. There’s nothing else I “need” to do, I’ve already successfully argued my points.

    “After listing to much of Limbaugh, i dont think he’s objective and I find him incredible biased, but I will also put his book on my list. I may not care for the man, but that doesnt mean that he doesnt make good points in his book, and how could I say he doesnt if i dont read it?”

    Bring up the specific reasons you believe he’s biased.. I’d like to know what you base that belief on.. I HAVE given my reasons for why I believe objectivity is lacking in the books recommended to me. Did you or anyone notice that I’ve gotten no argument to my point about Nate’s claim that his book recommendation is objective.. “because Paine bases his arguments ‘on’ the Bible”? I’m almost positive that that’s a “selling” point that Paine himself put in his book, on the back cover I’m guessing, and that Nate is just repeating it.. but again, HERE’S the problem.. there is disagreement IN the Bible.. over context and meaning. So, that right there makes Paine’s and Nate’s claim absurd and supports my belief that reading Paine’s book would be a waste of time. He and Nate can’t even be objective about the claim of objectivity!

    Like you, I agree.. there *might* be a few good points in his book.. and that’s why I’ve ASKED for examples.. which I still haven’t gotten.. and now I can add that I’ve gotten no argument to my valid point that the clam of using the Bible as the “proof” of objectivity is a giant fail.

    I don’t know what else I can do.. I’ve asked for excerpts, examples, links.. but all I get is accusations while giving me nothing to back up your claims about the book. It’s ridiculous. Anyone applying OBJECTIVITY could easily understand my reasoning here. No one wants to waste time being indoctrinated.

    Like

  12. Kathy,

    I’m not sure what points you proved. Are we talking about things from the first Kathy thread, because I didn’t read that one, and maybe I should. Did you address something recently that you feel has not been discussed?

    Like

  13. “Anything I don’t know I look up..(from apologetic websites that confirm my beliefs) and then I respond.”

    “No one wants to waste time being indoctrinated.” – and yet, you spent your youth doing exactly that.

    Like

  16. Brandon, first off, Paul never met/knew Jesus. Secondly, he did not see Jesus after his resurrection — he heard a disembodied voice that told him … what?

    He was not an apostle. In fact, he separated himself from those who (supposedly) were the companions of Jesus (see Galatians) and preached a “gospel” based on the Mystery religions in order to win over the gentiles. Paul’s teachings were not Yeshua’ s teachings. As John Shelby Spong said, “Paul’s words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul — a vast difference.”

    There’s so much more but that will have to suffice.

    Like

  17. Come on arch, you never believed anything I said anyways, your just trying to get a rise out of me! My real name is Laurie, for what it’s worth. What’s in a name, 6 letters and 4 vowels in mine! 😉

    Like

  18. “Come on arch, you never believed anything I said anyways” – Are you KIDDING? I hang on your every word! You are the voice of theist reason, assuming that’s not an oxymoron. And now I have a choice as to which lie to believe – SAY it isn’t so!

    “you(‘)r(e) just trying to get a rise out of me!” – Moi? Now would I do that to you?

    Like

  19. Hi Ruth and William, apologies for the delay in responding 🙂

    Ruth,

    how could the devil tempt Jesus with scripture?

    Could Jesus, in his perfection, while possibly subject to temptation, really be fooled by promises he knew couldn’t be delivered?

    Those “gifts” that Satan supposedly promised Jesus weren’t even Satan’s to give. Wouldn’t Jesus have been all too aware of that? Making temptation impossible?

    My understanding is that not long after Jesus was Baptised:

    Matthew 3:16-

    And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

    After He was then tempted in a number of ways.

    “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil” (Matt. 4:1, cf. also Luke 4:1).

    I found parts of this overview helpful.

    https://bible.org/seriespage/baptism-and-temptation-messiah

    I’ve added my own thoughts to it though, and cut its length.

    The First Temptation

    (1) The proposition. Satan’s first line of attack concerns the hunger which Jesus experienced due to His 40-day fast:

    “And the tempter came and said to Him, ‘If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.’ But He answered and said, ‘It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’” (Matt. 4:3-4).

    (2) The premise. Satan’s suggestion was based on several erroneous premises or presuppositions.

    First, a God Who is good would not deprive one of His creatures. Doing without food cannot be the will of God.

    (3) If Jesus had done what the devil had asked, then He could never have spoken on the subject of discipleship and self-denial (as He so often did cf. Matthew 10:31-39; Luke 9:23, 57-62) unless He Himself had experienced it.

    The Second Temptation

    (1) The Proposition. Having failed in the first recorded effort, Satan moved to an alternate approach:

    Then the devil took Him into the holy city; and he stood Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give His angels charge concerning You; and in their hands they will bear You up, lest You strike Your foot against a stone.’” Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shalt not tempt the Lord your God’” (Matt. 4:5-7).

    This was a very subtle challenge for Jerusalem was the sacred city, and the temple was the center of Israel’s religious life. Furthermore, the Old Testament prophecies anticipated Messiah’s public presentation at the temple (Mal. 3:1). Besides this, there was a rabbinic tradition that Messiah would reveal Himself from the roof of the temple. As a rule, the Jews expected Messiah to be introduced in some kind of blaze of glory, and a spectacular leap and miraculous deliverance would precisely fill the bill.

    (2) The Premise. Satan’s presupposition in this challenge was that God’s faithfulness is best demonstrated by the spectacular. In addition, there is the implicit assumption that one’s trustworthiness should be put to the test. If God was the Father of our Lord Jesus, let Him prove it, and in such an unusual way that no one could miss it.

    The 91st Psalm which Satan quoted from speaks of the quiet confidence which the child of God possesses. But divine protection does not encourage presumption. Christ’s reply again from the book of Deuteronomy is that, “You shall not tempt the Lord your God” (Deut. 6:16).

    The Third Temptation

    (1) The Lord has so frustrated Satan that all masks and facades have been torn away. It is here we see Satan at his worst. The proposal was simple and straight-forward:

    Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain, and showed Him all the Kingdoms of the world, and their glory; and he said to Him, “All these things will I give You, if you fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Begone, Satan! For it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only” (Matt. 4:8-10).

    (2) The Premise. In offering our Lord the kingdom of the world, Satan proposes to exchange that which was his most valued possession for that which he most diligently aspired, the worship of God Himself. The proposal: Give up your kingdom for mine, the future for the present, with only the bow of the knee. Satan had desired to be ‘like the most high’ (Isaiah 14:12-14), to exercise the prerogatives and privileges of God. To receive homage from Messiah would be worth any price.

    Points:

    (1) The temptation is not evil in and of itself. Jesus was ‘Spirit led’ to be tempted. What Satan meant as a temptation, God used to reveal The character of God.

    (2) The temptation of Christ proved Him qualified for His work on the cross. Only a sinless, spotless ‘Lamb of God’ could take upon Himself the sin of the world. Christ’s sinlessness stood out when tempted by the master deceiver.

    (3) The temptation prepared Him to be a merciful High Priest.

    “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15).

    Christ’s temptation ‘in every point as we are’ enables Him to be a sympathetic High Priest (cf. also Hebrews 2:17-18). While His temptation proved Him sinless, it made Jesus sensitive to our weaknesses. Understanding is gained through experience. This was a severe experience.

    Hebrews 4:15-

    For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

    William,

    I can get why you said that, but why is it the case that they’re not the same?

    is it because you see god as real and the others as false or pretend?

    Yes, otherwise I wouldn’t be a monotheist 🙂

    Now, is your faith in the god the same as your faith in your father or mother? Or as in other loved ones, etc?

    I don’t think so, because my friends, family and neighbours interact with me in different ways to how I have experienced God interacting in my life.

    Which relationship is more tangible?

    To me they are different interactions.

    Could someone have just as much a relationship with Anne Frank and one could with Jesus?

    I don’t think so, I haven’t at least had the same interactions with Anne Frank

    And some people believe in magic and fictitious creatures, how is their faith in those things less that someone else’s faith in a god or gods?

    I don’t really know if faith can be measured, people have faith in all sorts of things. I’m also not sure if there are different kinds of faith, or that the same faith is directed at different things. I don’t know, Its less to me because I don’t think belief in big foot or unicorns is reasonable.

    Thanks guys 🙂

    Like

  20. Laurie,

    Thanks for mentioning The Age of Revelation. I’ve been listening to Paine’s Age of Reason, but was unaware of the rebuttal.

    I read an excerpt of “Age of Revelation” (elsewhere online), and TBH, it seemed like a lot of prattle to me.

    I think it would be difficult to convince me that there is any truth to Christian claims without demonstrating Bible prophecies as being specific, clear, and fulfilled. I think Paine has some pretty solid arguments against them in Reason. Does Boudinot address these prophecies and Paine’s points somewhere in Revelation? If so, I’d like to jump straight to that place. (The table of contents in the link I gave above is not topically informative.)

    Like

  21. Laurie,

    “Kathy,

    I’m not sure what points you proved. Are we talking about things from the first Kathy thread, because I didn’t read that one, and maybe I should. Did you address something recently that you feel has not been discussed?”

    Laurie, just bring up the points that you feel prove me wrong.. and we can debate them.

    Like

  24. Brandon,

    Messiah warned frequently during his ministry, that false prophets would come after him. He warned of Pharisees, ravenous wolves, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and herodians. Paul was a Pharisee. The ravenous wolf is a reference to genesis 49 and the Benjamite wolf prophecy (which scholars agree was about Paul). A wolf in sheep’s clothing is someone that appears to be serving YHWH, but is not. Paul called the herodians kinsman.

    Messiah warned that if anyone claimed to see him in the desert (Damascus) or wilderness (Damascus) not to follow them. Paul claimed exactly that. He saw a blinding light, which is a reference to Lucifer. And his eyes were covered in scales ( like a serpent).

    He also said there were only twelve apostles, and warned in revelations 2 about false apostles in Ephesus. These apostles were teaching to eat meat sacrificed to idols, they were liars , and he likened them to balaam. Have you read the story of balaam? It is a parallel to Paul’s conversion story. Paul also lied several times in the New Testament writings.

    YHWH said in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 that he would send a false prophet to test his people and see if they would keep his commandment.

    Read the word of Yahusha, and then read the words of Paul. Messiah didn’t abolish the law, if he did, he would be a false prophet according to Torah. Paul tried to do away with the law. Deuteronomy 4 also says if you add to, or take away from the Torah, you are a false prophet. Paul did both of these things, when he said circumcision was no longer relevant, and a woman had to cover her head. Further more, he said a man with long hair shames God. This is not correct.

    He misquoted Torah at least 50% of the time. They are all bad, but Romans 3:10-18 and Ephesians 4:8 are the ones that i remember right now. Oh, and Romans 9 where he makes people believe that YHWH hated Esau before he was born, and that Abraham was righteous by faith (Genesis 15). Also that Sarah was given a son because she had faith. That one is a blatant lie. She laughed in disbelief when she heard, and then she lied about it. YHWH told Isaac his father was righteous because he kept his commandments in genesis 26.

    Sorry for rambling, hopefully some of that made sense.

    Like

  25. Just a side note as well regarding this:

    (1) The temptation is not evil in and of itself. Jesus was ‘Spirit led’ to be tempted. What Satan meant as a temptation, God used to reveal The character of God.

    when I included Jesus was ‘Spirit led’ I intended that to highlight *Spirit led* not for it to be in quotation marks. Just to clear up any risk of confusion 🙂

    Like

Comments are closed.