Can any Christian explain to me how Ezkiel's temple is purely symbolic? Why the fuck does it have endless descriptions of the exact measurements of a future physical temple if it's nothing but a metaphor? This is just one paragraph in chapter 40, and it goes on and on like this:>11 Then he measured the width of the opening of the gateway, ten cubits; and the length of the gateway, thirteen cubits. 12 There was a barrier before the side rooms, one cubit on either side. And the side rooms were six cubits on either side. 13 Then he measured the gate from the ceiling of the one side room to the ceiling of the other, a breadth of twenty-five cubits; the openings faced each other. 14 He measured also the vestibule, sixty cubits. And around the vestibule of the gateway was the court.[d] 15 From the front of the gate at the entrance to the front of the inner vestibule of the gate was fifty cubits. 16 And the gateway had windows all around, narrowing inwards toward the side rooms and toward their jambs, and likewise the vestibule had windows all around inside, and on the jambs were palm trees.
>>18030146Huh, that looks like disturbingly Egyptian.
>>18030146It exist in the spiritual world.
>>18030146If the Jews were sacrificing livestock like chickens, cows, goats & sheep that temple would stink of death and animal shit
>>18030146>Can any Christian explain to me how Ezkiel's temple is purely symbolic?It's very simple, if you take it literally it would destroy the core premise of Christianity. Since animal sacrifice for sins resumes.So Christards as usual just say whatever part of the bible they don't like is a metaphor
>>18030146I don't know about the temple, but the tiresome descriptions of the ten in Leviticus actually carry an incredibly rich amount of symbolism, from establishing symbolic counter-parts by placing things on opposite sides down to the wall-layout mirroring the layout of Leviticus chapters themselves. I wouldn't be surprised to see almost the exact same thing apply to all Temples, but I'd have to inspect a model to really see it.Source: Mary Douglas: Leviticus as Literature
>>18030283It's also for the Messiah's own sins. Christianity has no leg to stand on
>>18030273The smell pleases the Lord.>And he placed the fat thereof on the altar, and he took an ox, and a goat, and a sheep and kids, and salt, and a turtle-dove, and the young of a dove, and placed a burnt sacrifice on the altar, and poured thereon an offering mingled with oil, and sprinkled wine and strewed frankincense over everything, and caused a goodly savour to arise, acceptable before the Lord.
>>18030295>Mary Douglas: Leviticus as LiteratureLooks interesting. I can definitely believe there's symbolism in the measurements and whatnot, but my objection is that Christians believe it's ONLY symbolic. Both jews and christians believe the Tabernacle was a real thing as well as having symbolic meaning.I was making quick sketches as I read because it was hard to keep track of what it was meant to look like, and they ended up looking very similar to the images I see online, so there was clearly a thought-out physical plan in mind.
>>18030339>Christians believe it's ONLY symbolicI would have to look into that. I don't want to speculate or muddy the waters, but at some point in the ancient worldview, "symbolic" becomes more real than the actual material reality, so maybe there could be some miscommunication there.
>>18030146I don't think it's purely symbolic. It's meant to be an actual building that we should construct. Its important that we do, too, since once we do we'll get to see God's manifest presence enter into it. Imagine that taking place in this age of HD video - the entire world would then know that the God of this Temple is the true God.
>>18030344I've read extracts from Jerome's commentary on it, he clearly places symbolic meanings above any literal building of this temple. For example, the gate to the inner court is apparently the virgin Mary because the 'prince' stands in it, meaning Jesus incarnating in Mary's womb and Jesus' incarnation being the way into the inner court which is salvation. He doesn't leave room for it to be a real temple, and in fact that wouldn't make sense in Christianity because this temple includes animal sacrifices to expiate sins.There are a few Christian sects that think it's a real temple but they claim it's only to be built as a memorial and the sacrifices won't be for cleansing sins, which is untenable because the text says that's exactly what they're for.
>>18030273That's part of the point. Evil is an awful, repulsive, ugly thing that leads nowhere but death. It ruins God's great world. Grandeur sullied by death, because of evil.>>18030283Not so, according to Christianity, animal sacrifices never forgave sin. They were just symbols looking forward to the true sacrifice. Similarly, the sacrifices in the Third Temple will be reminders of that sacrifice.>>18030299Where does it say anything about the Messiah sinning?
>>18030388>Not so, according to Christianity, animal sacrifices never forgave sin.The Bible says they do atone for sins, the biggest example being the Day of Atonement:Leviticus 16>15 Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16 Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.>30 For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the LORD from all your sins.
>>18030385How on earth is some guy who died in the fifth century of any relevance? Did you think he had access to some secret interpretation of Ezekiel that we don't? No, he was just engaged in free-association making things up as he went along. This was very popular around that time as people looked for hidden secret meanings in texts. Its no different from Origen saying the woman at the well's five husbands were the books of the Torah or Gnostics saying there's some being called Anthropos and reading the New Testament using that word (just the normal word for man) as references to that being. >that wouldn't make sense in Christianity because this temple includes animal sacrifices to expiate sins.Why would sacrifices today be any different from sacrifices in the past? They don't have some sort of magical power. Catholics today go on and on about how the eucharist is a sacrifice. If bread works as a sacrifice today surely meat would be no different.
>>18030385I would have to look into that, but overall analyzing architecture symbolically should be a prime approach anyway. There are churches I've seen where you're seeing particular iconography when you enter and particular one when you leave precisely to provide narrative structure to the people inside and reveal to them how the Christian narrative plays out in space.
>>18030403You're reading a lot of metaphysical baggage into the word translated "atone". Take a look at https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3722.htm, it just means "cover" - its the same word used for what Noah did to the ark with pitch, for instance. It can mean pacify/appease, which of course obeying God would pacify/appease him.
>>18030419>You're reading a lot of metaphysical baggage into the word translated "atone".NTA but the word "atone" was literally invented to convey the meaning in its verse. Hebrew is a primitive language, you can always default to "well it just means this primitive thing duh" but more often than not that is not the case.
>>18030419>>18030403>For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the LORD FROM ALL YOUR SINS.
>>18030424>NTA but the word "atone" was literally invented to convey the meaning in its verse.Based on https://www.etymonline.com/word/atone that doesn't appear to be the case, it says: >"1590s, "be in harmony, agree, be in accordance," from adverbial phrase atonen (c. 1300) "in accord," literally "at one,"So this is a native English word, it wasn't coined for this passage.>Hebrew is a primitive languageHow is Hebrew more "primitive" than Latin or Greek?>well it just means this primitive thing duhYou should take words as they are when translating and save added interpretive padding for commentaries, unless your translation is specifically designed to incorporate some interpretive padding (like, say, the New Living Translation). Shoving an entire universe of metaphysical scaffolding onto a word that just means "cover" or "appease" is absurd.
>>18030449Again you're reading metaphysical baggage into pretty simple terms. In the Old Testament even something like a bath could make you "clean". Did baths have some metaphysical impact on guilt and innocence?
>>18030451>a native English wordThat's not what the sources you quoted say.>How is Hebrew more "primitive" than Latin or Greek?Yes, much more primitive. Source: I studies Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew.It literally reads like "Abraham take camel and seeing slave going to house.">You should take words as they are when translating and save added interpretive padding for commentariesThere are no "words as they are". All words are contextual and if you refuse to listen to volumes of commentaries noting that context, you are guaranteed to project your own assumptions into the text instead of undertanding it.>Shoving an entire universe of metaphysical scaffolding onto a word that just means "cover" or "appease" is absurd.Definitely less absurd than pretending ancient Hebrews on another continent with another paradigm understand words like you do.
>>18030459>Did baths have some metaphysical impact on guilt and innocence?No. But metaphysical impact on guilt and innocence was expressed by bath imagery.
>>18030459Yeah it did according to the Old Testament, it literally says it cleanses people from all their sins. >>18030403
>>18030476>That's not what the sources you quoted say.By "native English word" I meant one not coined for a Bible translation effort like you had said. As that link discusses, it's a normal word that has had a natural history of development. I think "at-one-ment" for a Bible translation being its origin is mostly a speculative folk etymology. >It literally reads like "Abraham take camel and seeing slave going to house."Can you give me an example with an actual Hebrew sentence of what you're interpreting as "primitive"? As best I can tell here you seem to be objecting to the word order and perhaps to something about conjugation. Biblical Hebrew usually has a VSO word order, how is that more "primitive" than English's SVO? In what sense is it more "advanced" to be a verb before the subject? You linguistic studies must be rather shallow since languages vary in word order and how they conjugate words all the same. Mandarin Chinese for example doesn't conjugate nouns or verbs like we do. If you were to "Englishify" Mandarin like you did with Hebrew here, it would sound like parody Caveman speech. "I went to the caves" would in "Englishified Mandarin" be "Me go cave".But how do we sound from their perspective? Since our language doesn't use tones, "Mandarinized English" would sound inefficient, excessively verbose, and flat, perhaps quite robotic. This is more or less a universal with different language families. >you are guaranteed to project your own assumptions into the text instead of undertanding it.The irony here is that's precisely what you're doing. You're placing an entire foreign metaphysical scaffold on a single word to torture it into making a point that it does not.>Definitely less absurd than pretending ancient Hebrews on another continent with another paradigm understand words like you do.That is precisely what I am cautioning against.
>>18030479Right - and today, we can still have baths without somehow making some point against Christ cleansing us of our sins. It'll be the same for the sacrifices in the Temple. The staff eat those sacrifices you know, so conceptually they're really not all that different from a holiday barbecue. By being part of the quasi-sacred holiday celebration the barbecue takes on a special meaning, but at the end of the day you're just cooking some meats.
>>18030531>Yeah it didSo let me get this straight. You are saying that baths had a direct causal metaphysical impact on your guiltiness or lack thereof. Is this your position?
It's probably one of, if not the single most difficult set of chapters in the entire Bible.The Rabbinic interpretation that it's supposed to be a future building is wrong because Ezekiel clearly envisions the Temple as something to be built immediately after the exile (Ezekiel 43:10-12). Therefore, I think it's safe to conclude that Ezekiel has in mind an idealized version of the Second Temple which, eventually, would herald in the coming of the Messiah, being a sort of prefiguring to him and the covenant he would establish.We find several key elements in Ezekiel's vision which point to this. For example, Ezekiel 44:1-2 has often been taken by commentators to be an allegory for the virgin mother of Chirst. Also, we find in Ezekiel 45:21-24 a distinct priestly figure as well as ruler, who is neither the Davidic king nor the High Priest, but whose role is rather to be a typological figure for Christ by foreshadowing the Easter-event, or possibly even a typological figure for the vicar of Christ, such as Peter or the Pope. Actually, all throughout Ezekiel 45-46 we find new unique laws surrounding the Biblical feasts and sacrifices, distinct from those in the Torah. For example Yom Kippur is non-existent in Ezekiel's vision, instead we get a completely new set of festivals designated for the purification of the Temple (Ezekiel 45:18-20). This change in covenental laws clearly suggest some kind of shift in God's relationship to the people of Israel, reminiscent of what the prophet Jeremiah hopes for in his prophecy about a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31).[Continued below...]
[Continued from above...]However we know Ezekiel's vision was contingent upon the actual repentance of the Israelites (Ezekiel 43:9-11). And we know that the Israelites continued to defile God's sanctuary even after they came back from exile, as the prophet Malachi laments (Malachi 1:6-10; 12-14). Therefore, the prophet designates a new, better sacrifice (the Eucharist), that will be offered everywhere among the nations (Malachi 1:11), which Christ himself spoke about being fulfilled through his ministry (John 4:21-24).
>>18030559>Ezekiel clearly envisions the Temple as something to be built immediately after the exile (Ezekiel 43:10-12).Couldn't this be read as saying that it will be time for Ezekiel's Temple to be built when "they are ashamed of all that they have done"? But that isn't the case yet, so it still hasn't been built. Indeed when the Jews tried in the fourth century to build another Temple, God miraculously stopped them according to excellent historical evidence: https://www.fisheaters.com/juliantemple.html
>>18030542>not coined for a Bible translation effortThat is fair, I wasn't entirely correct there. However, the word did shift from whatever marginal usage it naturally had to almost entirely theological one, precisely because that term was special and not sufficiently addressed by "covering".>Hebrew is primitive>you seem to be objecting to the word orderWord order doesn't really bother me, I am pointing out the lack of past tense, lack of future tense, lack of word declension, prefix and suffix options that don't even hold a candle to Old Slavonic, much less to Greek, words that conflate dozens of terms that in other languages would be differentiated (such as evil) etc. If you took Biblical Hebrew at face value, you'd just see it as random shepherds telling stories with vague poetic word usage at times. However, the commentaries and wider bodies of text reveal that the words, and sometimes even the letters themselves had a scope of symbolic meaning that was understood as part of the text's immediate meaning.> You're placing an entire foreign metaphysical scaffold on a single word Foreign? You think Hebrew paradigm we learned from Hebrews is foreign to Hebrew texts?>>Definitely less absurd than pretending ancient Hebrews on another continent with another paradigm understand words like you do.>That is precisely what I am cautioning against.But that's what you end up doing. To you words have material counterparts first and metaphorical usages second. >>18030549Like I said, nobody proposes that baths or meats are metaphysical. But metaphysical language was expressed by baths and meats. And when you ignore that the words were used this way, you're being unfaithful to the language and the text.
>>18030553God can take away the guilt of a man by many ways.>“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”>Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”
The measurements completion of God’s kingdom.
>>18030570The actual fulfillment of Ezekiel's Temple was indeed conditioned upon the repentance and obedience of the Israelites, which is why it was only partially fulfilled with the construction of the Second Temple under Zerubabbel. Because of the Israelite's continued wickedness in the sight of God, God designated that there should be a better sacrifice which would be offered in every place at a future time through the prophet Malachi, but indeed this was something already forseen by God since through the prophet Isaiah he already declares he will take some from the gentiles to make them priests and Levites (Isaiah 66:21-23).
>>18030575>precisely because that term was special and not sufficiently addressed by "covering".Looking at the word's usage at https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3722.htm, it isn't a technical term like that. In Genesis 6 it's the word for what Noah does with pitch to his boat, in Genesis 32:20 Jacob uses it for making up with his brother, in Proverbs 16:14 its used for making the king not angry with you, and so on. It isn't a word that only refers to some sort of metaphysical religious removal of sin.>I am pointing out the lack of past tense, lack of future tense, lack of word declension, prefix and suffix options that don't even hold a candle toBut again you could do this with any language. Someone who spoke Hebrew making the same argument about how English is constructed might say "English words are random collections of sounds. Hebrew is elegant: every word grows from triliteral roots, so related concepts are bound together. From כתב (k-t-v, ‘to write’) we get ‘letter,’ ‘book,’ ‘scribe,’ and more. In English you must memorize unrelated words like ‘write,’ ‘book,’ ‘letter.’ How primitive!".Or "English verbs are trapped in a few inflexible tense boxes: past, present, future. In Hebrew, verbs are fluid and aspect-driven, they can express timeless truths, unfolding actions, or completed events flexibility. English, by contrast, is primitive: it forces every action into one of three boxes.">words that conflate dozens of terms that in other languages would be differentiated (such as evil) English quite famously does this with "love". >If you took Biblical Hebrew at face value, you'd just see it as random shepherds telling stories with vague poetic word usage at times.This is like saying "If you take modern English at face value, you'd see it as just random farmers who don't talk about anything but last harvest, this harvest, and next harvest". It's simply bigotry based on "this is different so I don't like it".
>>18030575>Foreign? You think Hebrew paradigm we learned from Hebrews is foreign to Hebrew texts?Stuff like "that gate is actually the Virgin Mary" is Catholic paradigm inherited from Greco-Romans who had a habit of looking for nonexistent hidden meanings in texts through free-association. The word actually used doesn't carry the baggage you're attempting to make it carry.>To you words have material counterparts first and metaphorical usages second.What religion do you belong to, if any? It would be helpful if I could see where you're coming at this from.>Like I said, nobody proposes that baths or meats are metaphysical.M-hm. And just like there's not some theological problem introduced by pastors taking baths today, there won't be a problem with sacrifices in the Third Temple.>But metaphysical language was expressed by baths and meats.Can you, from the text itself, demonstrate that it intends to communicate that these actions actually are effecting sin itself as a quasi-entity/substance in some way like you're advocating?
>>18030388The third Temple currently exists you retarded dispensationalist.
>>18030646>It isn't a word that only refers to some sort of metaphysical religious removal of sin.>onlyThat wasn't the goalpost. The goalpost was that you need to consider these meanings at all, which you didn't and instead defaulted to material meanings because this is your bias and you refuse to acknowledge it.>But again you could do this with any languageNo. You could make one or two critiques of the language's weakness in particular, but being at the bottom of the barrel in most linguistic aspects altogether is a feature of primitive languages like Biblical Hebrew. >English words are random collections of sounds. >Hebrew is elegant: every word grows from triliteral roots, so related concepts are bound together.Roots which are also assigned random sounds. Not quite there, Anon.>Differentiation (of words or tenses) is primitiveFalse by definition.>English quite famously does this with "love".You mean love, infatuation, romance, ardour, amity, cherishment etc.? Most of which don't have a Biblical Hebrew counterpart?>It's simply bigotry based on "this is different so I don't like it".Yes, that is what I'm calling out in your approach. We're getting somewhere.
>>18030585So you're of the opinion the baths actually did have such an effect. Alright then. We can still take baths today and there's no issue, right? So there won't be any issue once there's some sacrifices too.
>>18030660>Stuff like "that gate is actually the Virgin Mary" is Catholic paradigmWe were discussing "covering". And if metaphysical connotations are Catholic then I suppose the OT and rabbinical writers were Catholic when producing a wealth of symbolic interpretations of things like Nebuchadnezzar’s statue in Daniel, Four horns & four craftsmen in Zechariah, Isaiah’s vineyard song etc. The symbolic meaning is immediate and you anachronistically demote it to secondary place.>>But metaphysical language was expressed by baths and meats.>Can you, from the text itself...About as much as you can justify the "merely material" reading from the text itself. You can't. It's a bias. Except yours is informed by today's paradigm. Mine is informed by Hebrew culture.
>>18030644Right! So you don't even necessarily need ethnic Hebrews to staff the Third Temple. A Gentile can be one of the Levites that it says will work there. Probably also one of the Zadokites, since those are a branch of Levites.The Second Temple was always meant to be destroyed, Daniel, Ezekiel's contemporary, had said so in Daniel 9. Its the Third Temple that will actually last and stand. (Presumably unless we really drop the ball yet again, but building it should allow us to get irrefutable HD video recording of the God of Israel entering it forever, which should be a strong barrier against anyone straying).
>>18030664Ezekiel gives quite specific descriptions and what he describes is nowhere to be found. Unless you're arguing something else counts as a third temple, in which case you're being pedantic since I clearly mean the physical structure.>you retardedIs this Christian speech, anon?>dispensationalistI'm not a Dispensationalist.
>>18030403We sinned, so the innocent animals pay the price, and we'll "cleanse" the holy place by sprinkling blood everywhere. Makes perfect sense, if you're retarded.
>>18030665>That wasn't the goalpost.The anon's argument was exclusively and in its entirety based solely on the mere fact of the use of this word. So yes, it absolutely was!>you need to consider these meanings at allThis translates to "well it doesn't necessarily NOT mean...". Which still doesn't help the argument from that anon since his argument only works if that is absolutely what the word means. But it isn't, its philosophical baggage you have to import.>You could make one or two critiques of the language's weakness in particular, but being at the bottom of the barrel in most linguistic aspects altogether is a feature of primitive languages like Biblical Hebrew.And what determines the "bottom" of the barrel vs. the "top" of the barrel?>Roots which are also assigned random sounds.Not quite, the triliteral roots mean the words arising from them won't have random sounds, but share this same one. Like כתב (k-t-v). Letter, book, scribe, and other similar words share this root.>False by definition.Who's definition? Provide me a source please.>You mean love, infatuation, romance, ardour, amity, cherishment etc.?I mean the word "love" itself. If I say "I love her", that tells you nearly nothing about our relationship besides that I've expressed a positive sentiment for it, and you need to use context to fill in the details.>Most of which don't have a Biblical Hebrew counterpart?Well bear in mind that our corpus of Biblical Hebrew is, comparatively speaking, really small and focus on pretty specific subject matter. Other than tiny fragments we barely have anything like personal letters or recipes or business documents. This is a bit like evaluating English as a whole based exclusively on the, say, the words found in Shakespeare's collected works. (Which would actually be longer than the Hebrew Bible)>Yes, that is what I'm calling out in your approach.That makes no sense. כָּפַר simply isn't a technical term for a metaphysical process.
>>18030682Except, the prophet Malachi talks about pure offerings being brought in every place, and historically this has been linked to the Eucharist (Didache 14). If anything, the failure of the Israelite's to actually follow through with Ezekiel's vision is why it was superseded with the Christian sacrificial system. I agree with you that God always foresaw the destruction of the Second Temple, after all he decreed it, conditioning it up on the obedience of the Israelites, which is why Ezekiel's vision is not to be read strictly literally, but also not strictly allegorically either, but as an idealization of God's plan for the Israelite post exile.
>>18030553My dude, the Old Testament prescribes rituals which the jews believed cleansed things due to God's power, it's all throughout the Torah. And we were talking about the blood sacrifices for the Day of Atonement anyway. Your objection is basically a materialist one akin to "Oh you think a 1st century carpenter being executed causally metaphysically removed guiltiness, I guess if we execute a carpenter today that'll remove your sins?"
>>18030712I don't believe that, I'm arguing against that dumb Christian viewpoint, they are contradicting their own holy texts.
>>18030681>And if metaphysical connotations are Catholic then I suppose the OT and rabbinical writers were Catholic when producing a wealth of symbolic interpretations of things like Nebuchadnezzar’s statue in Daniel, Four horns & four craftsmen in ZechariahThose are specifically written as visions to be interpreted. The text outright and directly states this. And yes, Rabbinical writers went absolutely bonkers with this kind of thing as well. Have you ever cracked open the Talmud and seen its bizarre interpretations of random snippets of out-of-context scripture?>The symbolic meaning is immediateBecause these are visions specifically meant to be interpreted and the text outright tells us this. >About as much as you can justify the "merely material" reading from the text itself.Well that's easy. The word means cover/appease. I read it as cover/appease. Done.If you want to say it means something else here, bring some evidence.>Mine is informed by Hebrew culture.What religion do you believe in, if any?
>>18030726Not all Christians believe this or have historically believed this. This specific theology about animal sacrifice is held by those who have an over-literalistic view on penal substitution. It doesn't really make sense though when you think about it. How could animals literally bear guilt when they aren't even moral agents? You can't impute sin to them, it doesn't make sense. Hebrews 10:4 is quite clear that the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant didn't literally take away sins. The problem with Protestants is that they seem to have a very confused take on sacraments and sacramentals. The way Catholics see is, the OT rituals are more like sacramentals, as opposed to the sacraments of the new law, while many Protestants take them to be basically sacraments, means of grace. It might explain why some of the more extreme antinomian Protestants reject the concept of Christian sacraments altogether, because they conflate them with what the Israelites were doing with the ceremonies of the Old law, and see them as "works".
>>18030718>>18030728>based solely on the mere fact of the use of this wordHis objection was you discard the metaphysical connotations, not that they are the only denotation. Link me to where he said "only".> its philosophical baggage you have to import.From a materialistically biased perspective? Absolutely! Do you finally acknowledge your bias?>And what determines the "bottom" of the barrel vs. the "top" of the barrel?Anon, you're grasping at straws. If you cannot tell what is simpler and what is more complex, I guess leave it alone. I do not concede but I'm not going to enable you playing dense.>>complex is not primitive by definition>Who's definition?Grasping at straws. Don't you notice?>love is general>s-surely your critique was that general words exist at all... and not that concepts are not differentiated enough in the vocabulary?>I mean... maybe that vocabulary existed somewhere at some point.Grasping. At. Straws.>words arising from them won't have random sounds,Good thing I specifically talked about root sounds.>Those are specifically written as visions to be interpreted.>The text outright and directly states this.Please quote the text outright and directly stating the examples I listed have specially imported metaphysical baggage.>Rabbinical writers went absolutely bonkers with this kind of thing as well. Right, so you admit the Hebrew culture did actually recognize all these connotations but we should omit them when reading their texts...>>About as much as you can justify the "merely material" reading from the text itself.>Well that's easy. The word means cover/appease. I read it as cover/appease. DoneWell that's easy, bathing has metaphysical connotations so I read it with metaphysical connotations. Lmao.
>>18030722>the prophet Malachi talks about pure offerings being brought in every place, and historically this has been linked to the Eucharist (Didache 14).We're not going to stop taking communion at church because this temple gets built>which is why Ezekiel's vision is not to be read strictly literally, but also not strictly allegorically either, but as an idealization of God's plan for the Israelite post exile.Ezekiel 43:11 says the instructions about the Temple were written "so that they may observe all its laws and all its statutes and carry them out". It directly says it's something intended to be followed. It seems like the chance we might get to actually see God manifest and enter it like He did for Solomon's Temple and Ezekiel 43:4-5 says would happen with this one too makes it worth a shot. If we build it, worst case scenario we get a really cool and unique church. Best case scenario we get absolute, recorded proof for the rest of time that the deity it's dedicated to is the true God. All other religions and atheism refuted on the spot.
>>18030670Baths cleansed spiritual impurities, not sins.
>>18030738I agree it doesn't make sense but the Bible outright says animal sacrifices cleanses people of sins >>18030403
>>18030723Did you read my followup? >>18030670If you believe the baths did have such an effect but we can still take baths today and its no problem, then sacrifices at the Third Temple aren't a problem either.
>>18030758My man, the Day of Atonement wasn't a mikveh, it was a series of blood sacrifices. I'm not totally sure what your objection is here. Are you saying the Third Temple sacrifices would be fine in the future if they really did work in the past? Well, that contradicts the New Testament, especially the book of Hebrews and Paul's letters.
>>18030754>We're not going to stop taking communion at church because this temple gets builtI don't fully understand your theology here. It seems to contradict the sufficiency of Christ's atonement since the vision talks about animal sacrifice. If you think animal sacrifices will be reinstated at some future time then this simply contradicts the theology of Hebrews. I also don't think this view aligns with even the historical Protestant take, it sounds like dispensationalism.>It directly says it's something intended to be followed.I agree with you that on that, but you're confusing God's preceptive will of God with his actual decretive will. God did give a literal precept to Ezekiel about the building of his Temple, but it was conditioned, and not definitively willed, as, say, the coming of Jesus Christ was. You can't have a literal future Third Temple, it is the Mystical Body of Christ which is our new holy Temple
>>18030769>but it was conditioned, and not definitively willedI think this is the crux of the matter. How would you tell? In all the usual examples of conditional prophecy I see, there's evidence in the text that it's conditional, e.g. in Jonah, his whole reason for fleeing from God's calling was that he knew God was merciful and would relent from the prophecied destruction. There's no such caveat in Ezekiel, and if you open up seemingly definite prophecies to being actually conditional, then Jesus' return is conditional.
>>18030742>His objection was you discard the metaphysical connotationsHuh? He says no such thing in >>18030403>From a materialistically biased perspective? Absolutely!We seem to be having some sort of disconnect since what you're saying here makes no sense as far as I can see.Let me ask it this way. Why do you believe the word is being used the way you're advocating in that passage?>Anon, you're grasping at straws....by asking for your standard when you say one thing is superior to another?>If you cannot tell what is simpler and what is more complexYou're confusing different systems with levels of complexity. Linguists have studied this for over a century. No human language family is more primitive than another. They all balance out. Where one language has rich inflections, another has tones or particles or word order rules that are just as rich.If Biblical Hebrew, which I guarantee you do not know and cannot read or speak, looks simple to you, it's only because you’re judging it as if it were an Indo-European language. By the same logic, a Chinese speaker could say English is "primitive" because it lacks the complexity of tones, and a Hebrew speaker could say English is "primitive" because it lacks well-organized root-based word families.>Grasping. At. Straws.Are you saying our corpus of Hebrew from Biblical times ISN'T extremely limited? What percentage of English works do you think you need to have preserved before you find the word "amity" used?>Please quote the text outrightDaniel 2:36-45 directly interprets the dream about the statue. Zechariah 2:19 tells you that the four horns he saw are those "that have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem". Isaiah 5:7 tells you what the vineyard symbolizes.
>>18030742>Right, so you admit the Hebrew culture did actually recognize all these connotations but we should omit them when reading their texts...It's making things up by free-association just like Jerome's "it's the Virgin Mary" nonsense the other anon was talking about.They just...straight make things up. Look at https://www.sefaria.org/Shabbat.22a.1?lang=bi for an example I found semi-randomly. (Seriously, click a random section and scroll - you'll find one):"What is the meaning of the verse that is written with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24)? By inference from that which is stated: And the pit was empty, don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, why does the verse say: There was no water in it? The verse comes to emphasize and teach that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it."Do you buy that?>bathing has metaphysical connotations so I read it with metaphysical connotationsExpand on this point.
>>18030755Did baths cleanse anything non-physical that Jesus doesn't cleanse?
>>18030781 1/2>He says no such thing in >>18030403He says no such thing like "metaphysical ought to be the only meaning" either. His objection is your bias, more below.>>From a materialistically biased perspective? Absolutely!>We seem to be having some sort of disconnect since what you're saying here makes no sense as far as I can see.Perhaps so. Because you are well spoken I'm finding it easy to point out where your bias shows, but because I'm not equally well spoken, I'm having trouble relaying this to you. Let me put it like this, from how you approach the text, you seem to think that words and concepts are primarily about material reality and that there are special extra cases where spiritual meaning is imported ad hoc, but that fat interpretative line only gets crossed when the text more or less instructs you to do so. Is that so?>Why do you believe the word is being used the way you're advocating in that passage?Because I've been trying to research the gap between ancient and contemporary paradigms and words having material meanings first and spiritual meanings only in special conditions is precisely something contemporary people anachronistically project onto the texts, not something we observe ancient people do. From Rabbis to Church Fathers, from shamans to Apostles, the spiritual reality is immanent and included in the concepts and words already, it doesn't need to be imported ad hoc.
>>18030781>>180307952/2>No human language family is more primitive than another. They all balance out. That is entirely false. A linguist could tell you exactly which one is more primitive, but they gradually phased out the term itself, just like social anthropology did. But it's downright ridiculous to believe they all "balance out" lol do you also think all architecture "balances out" and none is more primitive? Maybe all dances do? It's wishful thinking, Anon.>a Chinese speaker could say English is "primitive" because it lacks the complexity of tonesCorrect, and as I stated earlier, if English were at the bottom of a barrel in most aspects, the judgement would be warranted. But since you are willing to dig your heels as far in as to wonder why I associate the primitive with the simple, I'll let it slide. You're obviously not willing to reason about this.>>Please quote the text outright [and directly stating the examples I listed have specially imported metaphysical baggage.]>[lists where the examples are metaphysically interpreted]Great start. Now please see the goalpost and quote where the text directly states the examples have [[[ specially imported]]] metaphysical baggage. It doesn't say that. Because no special import is being done. The words have spiritual connotations by default.>It's making things up by free-associationIt's how they treated the words. You might judge it based on your bias, but it's how the Hebrew culture used the language.>>bathing has metaphysical connotations so I read it with metaphysical connotations>Expand on this point.See >>18030799, I tried to summarize it there.
>>18030766>My man, the Day of Atonement wasn't a mikveh, it was a series of blood sacrifices.I think you're getting two different lines of discussion mixed up. As happens when someone replies to an earlier post ignoring the later responses as the discussion goes on.>Are you saying the Third Temple sacrifices would be fine in the future if they really did work in the past?Yes, baths were part of making you clean and there's no theological problem introduced by taking a bath today. Sacrifices in the Third Temple don't introduce any problem either.> Well, that contradicts the New Testament, especially the book of Hebrews and Paul's letters.The Book of Hebrews is one of the strongest supports for exactly what I'm saying. Hebrews 10:4 directly states "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."They never actually took away sins in the first place per Hebrews, they were just images of the true sacrifice to come. There's absolutely no issue with them later being images of the true sacrifice that had come.And I have no clue what passage in Paul's letters you think might contradict me.
>>18030769>I don't fully understand your theology here. It seems to contradict the sufficiency of Christ's atonement since the vision talks about animal sacrifice. If you think animal sacrifices will be reinstated at some future time then this simply contradicts the theology of Hebrews.I find this statement baffling. I don't even accept Hebrews as canon (we don't know what man wrote it, so saying God definitely wrote it is even more baseless) but it says exactly what I'm saying. Hebrews 10:3-4 says "But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."They're just reminders and never actually took away sins. All sin ever taken away was because of the blood of Christ.>but you're confusing God's preceptive will of God with his actual decretive willHe says it was written to be observed and carried out. You're contradicting Him if you say it wasn't written to be observed and carried out.>You can't have a literal future Third TempleJust build it, Ezekiel lays out how in painstaking detail. Follow the blueprint and there you go.>it is the Mystical Body of Christ which is our new holy TempleThat's not what people mean when they talk about the Third Temple. It metaphorically calls bodies where the Holy Ghost dwells "temples", but by that standard Solomon's Temple would clock in probably at least as the five-thousand eight-hundred and sixty-seventh temple. When people say "First Temple", "Second Temple", or "Third Temple" they mean the physical building on the Temple Mount.
>>18030780Because Ezekiel 43:9-11 introduces a conditional element to the building's construction. God charges them to repent, so that he may dwell among them forever. We get a really cool chiasm in verse 10-11, namely that Ezekiel is to describe the Temple to the Israelites to induce shame in them for their sins (v. 10) as he is doing with his vision, and that if they actually do feel shame for their sins then an even more in-depth, practical, plan should be set down for them to construct. Otherwise, the vision remains an ideal. Combine this information with the prophecies that we find in other places in the OT, such as in Malachi, and we see that Ezekiel's Temple was an idealized blueprint for the post-exilic Temple, symbolizing and leading into the Messianic age. This is why I said before that the vision is neither strictly literal, nor strictly allegorical, but deeply nuanced on many levels, containing both literal and allegorical elements, in an either/or fashion and in a both/and fashion.
>>18030799>He says no such thing like "metaphysical ought to be the only meaning" either.He uses the naked verse by itself as his argument. Nothing further. Like I said, this exclusively works if you read an entire philosophical structure into it that the words don't actually contain.>Is that so?I think you're mixing up a passage talking about something spiritual with someone imposing a meaning onto it that isn't there. Of course the passages about sacrifices and sin and God are talking about something spiritual, God is a spirit . But what are they saying about it? For that, we look at the meanings of the words. And the word כָּפַר simply does not carry some notion that these sacrifices were doing the same thing that Jesus' did.> From Rabbis to Church Fathers, from shamansMy man...these guys just make things up through free-association. They're not getting spiritual insights from God, they're just spewing whatever sounds good to them at the time. Where did Origen learn that the woman at the well's five husbands are the book of the Torah? Nowhere, he didn't, he made it up because it sounded good and because it sounded good and he liked it he figured it must be true.
>>18030831>I don't even accept Hebrews as canonOh ok, so you're a heretic? Opinions discarded then. >He says it was written to be observed and carried out. You're contradicting Him if you say it wasn't written to be observed and carried out.Learn theology and then come back.
>>18030801>A linguist could tell you exactly which one is more primitiveI really don't think so. There are no primitive language families, they all came about at the same time after the Tower of Babylon. If Hebrew were like, say, modern Mandarin, you would have plenty of ammunition to try and call it primitive from an English perspective, like we talked about earlier. Our parody of how primitive cavemen speak is quite close to how Mandarin actually mechanically works. But clearly that doesn't make it somehow primitive.>Now please see the goalpost and quote where the text directly states the examples have [[[ specially imported]]] metaphysical baggageYour first two examples are visions. The entire point of visions is that are symbolic and they need interpretation, which is then given. The third is a poem, and a hallmark of poetry is symbolism.>The words have spiritual connotations by default.For visions and poems yes, those are symbolic genres. But no one ever takes, say, a genealogy or one of the biographies in Kings and asks "what does this mean?" and receives an interpretation like they do with visions.>it's how the Hebrew culture used the language.Centuries upon centuries later and we can directly see they are just inventing things, unless you think it really was trying to say snakes and scorpions (specifically?!!) were in the hole with Joseph. Its no different from Gnostics making up "hidden meanings" in the Gospels and making up some divine being called Anthropos and reading him into passages that use that word. They're just simply making things up.
>>18030860The Roman Catholic Church of the 2nd century did not deem Hebrews canonical.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment
>>18030854>Of course the passages ... talking about something spiritual...That sounds like a yes, since you seem to again be implying a fat dividing line between a word relaying something material and a word relaying something spiritual, the former being primary. This is a materialist bias. There is no such dividing line in Hebrew understanding. All concepts have material and spiritual components already. כָּפַר is no exception.>this exclusively works if you read an entire philosophical structure into it that the words don't actually contain.According to Hebrews, they do.>these guys just make things up through free-association. > we can directly see they are just inventing thingsNo, we can't see this at all. This is not an argument. It's just you admitting that your paradigm cannot account for their methods. Ask yourself this - if your interpretative paradigm did not match the Hebrew one, what would be evidence of such mismatch if not your inability to accout for a type of reading they display again and again? You're having to discard readings of some of the most literate men of the time just to keep your bias.>>18030885>>>meant to be interpreted and the text outright tells us this>>Please quote >The entire point of visions is that are symbolic ... and a hallmark of poetry is symbolism.>visions and poems ... are symbolic genres.Right, so the text doesn't actually "outright tell us" that we need non-standard interpretation in these cases. It's just that you chose to put these cases behind the material/spiritual dividing line that you insist exists but that we can't seem to find in the Hebrew paradigm.>Its no different from Gnostics making up "hidden meanings" in the GospelsIt is very different. Though, again, if you're running on contemporary paradigms, these things will all seem random to you.
>>18030849I don't know if that's referring to a second set of plans, 43:10-11 is capping off the instruction in 40:4 "Declare all that you see to the house of Israel." The conditional is only in the Masoretic Text of v11 but it's following the unconditional in v10, and the LXX and Vulgate both have v11 as unconditional as do jewish interpreters like Rashi and Radak. It looks more like there isn't a break between v10 and v11 and more like one instruction to tell the plan just described.I can't see any other hint that there are further plans and I haven't seen it in commentaries, but if some mention it I'd be really interested. Commentors seem to either say it's literal and meant to be built (which still includes symbolism) or it's an ideal temple meant to inspire the Israelites, in the latter case it's still supporting continued animal sacrifices, Aaronide priesthood, and a mortal king.
It doesn't have to be metaphorical to be symbolic. The details of the ark, the other ark, and the temple of Solomon all have symbolism. Ezekiel simply has a vision for a temple that was ultimately never constructed, despite instruction.
>>18030987Even if the conditional clause "if... then..." doesn't appear in other manuscripts, it's still clear in context (v.9) that the Temple is contingent upon the Israelites actually repenting, and we know that they backslid. The prophecies in the Old Testament about the future priesthood of the gentiles, and of the Eucharist more generally, indicates that God had something much more grand in plan, and this is clearly set forth in the New Testament. The great majority of English translations do follow what is found in the MT though, including Catholic ones. At best this is a textual problem, not a problem with revelation.
>>18030388It says so right in the verses quoted. Where the son of man makes a sin offering (goat/bull) to God so he will be accepted. The same thing is also mentioned here (pic)>animal sacrifices never forgave sin"They shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the lamb of the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. In this way the priest will make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be FORGIVEN." - Leviticus 4:35
>>18031165The prince here is a type for Christ, or alternatively his representative, not for the Christ himself.
>>18031173That's what Christians always say, the fact is Jesus sins according to your texts. Every time there is a problem it's no longer a prophecy but a typology. This is exactly what you do when you butcher the concept of agency to justify your mangod
>>18030585Fire is used to purify gold, in the bible and real life. Daniel was put to test in the fire and the Lord was with him. What revelations is trying to say there is that since the speaker has spoken the true gospel, he is now clean (for it is like a fire that purifies everything that it touches, leaving nothing impure behind)This is why revelations is a time of division, separating the chaff. The false teachings will be put to light and will be known as that, false.>>18030723Exactly, Jesus himself argued with the pharisees and told his disciples to be careful of their leavened bread ("inflated" teachings, as in when he sent the leper to the temple to give his offering just to show them that the requirement of an offering is not a necessity).
>>18030146Stupid bait thread, but the answer is that it was not symbolic. It was a literal blueprint for the construction of the Second Temple. It came to be built and was eventually destroyed. There is and was nothing about it to suggest that a third physical temple ought to be built.
>>18031193You're a schizophrenic heretic and your so called theology has been exposed. Are you really just a Jew trying to undermine Christianity based on your interpretation of Ezekiel? You've been disproven. There is no supposed future Third Temple. Jesus Christ is the only true Temple.
>>18030901>since you seem to again be implying a fat dividing line between a word relaying something material and a word relaying something spiritualYou keep saying "spiritual" when what you really mean is "secret hidden meaning". Do you have some sort of consistent, objective standard for figuring out what that hidden meaning is? If not, it's just making things up that sound good to you. We can look at any dictionary and find a word's actual meaning. Where do we look to see the mystery hidden meaning, anon? Gotta open our third eye and gaze at the chakra?>According to Hebrews, they do.Do you mean Hebrews the people or Hebrews the book? Whichever it is, give a specific quote.>No, we can't see this at all.Do you think that passage in Genesis was written to communicate that snakes and scorpions were in the hole with Joseph?If you want an even better example of them obviously making things up look at https://www.sefaria.org/Gittin.56b.14?lang=bi: "A Divine Voice issued forth and said to him: Wicked one, son of a wicked one, grandson of Esau the wicked, for you are among his descendants and act just like him, I have a lowly creature in My world and it is called a gnat."It then says "The Gemara interjects: Why is it called a lowly creature? It is called this because it has an entrance for taking in food, but it does not have an exit for excretion."Do you think God actually compared Titus to a gnat because gnats have no orifice for expelling their waste? This is an outright falsehood so you'd better not say yes here. We know, for an absolute fact, that they make up false explanations for God's words with stuff like this.>It's just you admitting that your paradigm cannot account for their methods.You're right anon, surely I must expand my paradigm so I can understand God is talking about gnats having no anus.>did not match the Hebrew oneAnon the Rabbis writing the Talmud were farther from Moses than we are from the Fall of Rome. No "the Hebrew one".
>>18030901>Right, so the text doesn't actually "outright tell us" that we need non-standard interpretation in these cases. Anon it directly says these are symbolic, like we looked at. It tells us what the symbols mean. Nebuchadnezzar is actively seeking the dream's meaning before we even learn what the dream was in the text.>It's just that you chose to put these cases behind the material/spiritual dividing lineYou mean, again, "hidden meaning". And that's the entire point of things like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, the meaning is hidden from him, that's why he knows he needs an interpreter. >but that we can't seem to find in the Hebrew paradigm.Ever notice these hidden meanings are only in genres whose specific purpose is hidden meanings? Apocalypse and visions? Notice it never does this with a king's biography in Chronicles or other historical narrative?We can easily find these dividing lines, they're called genres anon.>It is very different. How? The methods are exactly identical. You dislike their results but they're doing exactly the same thing. And they can do the same thing but get wildly different results because what's being done is just making things up.
>>18030146Who says it's symbolic?????
>>18031165Are you reading "the prince" there as the Messiah? Its the same word used in Exodus 22:28 for "a ruler of your people". It's just a usual word for a ruler/leader. If we build the Third Temple in modern Israel, it would be the President of Israel who does these things. This is likely why it didn't specifically say a king.As for Leviticus 4:35, the Christian point is that this wasn't some sort of blood magic where the animal blood had energy that dispelled sin-energy or something like that. These animal sacrifices were looking forward to the true sacrifice: of God Himself, and that really did change reality. There is no resurrection without a death, and the only one who cannot stay dead is God. By God's death, the resurrection began, and the resurrection is what will rescue us from the penalty of all sin: death.God forgave them in the Old Testament not through some blood-energy from the sacrifice, but because they showed their faith and repentance by following his instructions for conducting a sacrifice, which was itself performance art looking towards God's own sacrifice for them.
>>18031373>no arguments just ad hominem and unjustified claimsconcession accepted>>18031689He literally does the same things the son of man earlier was doing in the previous verses, which also show him needing to cleanse himself of sins with animal blood. It is the same person.>this wasn't some sort of blood magic where the animal blood had energy that dispelled sin-energyIt's exactly that actually. "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life." - Leviticus 17:11 Why do you think it is forbidden to drink blood? That's the food of your christian deity which requires blood for forgiveness of sins.>the only one who cannot stay dead is GodYour "god" was at the mercy of death, it literally had mastery over him. And the reason he cannot stay dead is because the Father resurrected him into eternal life just like he would do with everyone else of the righteous according to your texts.
>>18031689>but because they showed their faith and repentanceYes but christard theology changes that. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood according to you people. Human sacrifice of an innocent specifically even though it is against the law. You need the sin chicken called Jesus to die.
>>18031083I'm not totally convinced, although you make some good points. v9 can easily be read as a command that will be carried out. It's at least a highly defensible position to say the command to build was unconditional, even if it's not certain. And the restored temple being conditional would imply it was at least possible for it to happen, in which case it was possible for the blood sacrifices for atonement to be reinstated and not have Jesus' sacrifice. But Hebrews says the Old Covenant sacrifices didn't take away sin and that Jesus' sacrifice was promised in an unbreakale oath, how is that the case when it's possible it wouldn't happen?
>>18031973>>18031977Oh wait, I recognize you. Are you a Muslim? If so I'm fairly certain you're that Muslim poster on here obsessed with getting the last word in who will go to absurd lengths to save face even when demonstrably wrong, like your "it's using an inclusive 'or'" madness with Aisha a few months ago.I might be wrong, so in your next post either:1. Attest that Muhammad was not the messenger of Allah so I know you're not that Muslim. 2. Let's pick up our last conversation where we left off or else you're going to go on the most absurd of tangents until the thread dies like your absolute psychosis about a natural English sentence using an inclusive "or". Why don't cameras ever record Jinn stealing water, utensils, or children like Muhammad said Jinn do?
>>18032292Would you look at that, another christian afraid to defend his own religion on OP's topic? No wonder you are so desperate to change the discussion mid way. As I said earlier your faith has no legs to stand on. My last discussion with you as far as I remember was when I demonstrated to you how in your books and tradition God cannot lie, even if we remove the ones you arbitrarily reject from your holy canon https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17924604 and since you are likely arguing under another name here is where your fallacious reasoning was exposed https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17982943/#17998960 No wonder you were trying to defend judeochristianity half the time while larping as an atheist haha. So that's why you "both" are namefags even though it's such a rare thing to do in the first place. It's going to go worse for you, since now you cannot hide away from the supernatural beings in your bible and what your fellow Christians claim to see based on their religious beliefs also taken from the bible and your traditions. Let alone the fact that your scripture claims Christians would be able to perform miracles greater than Jesus removing demons. hurr why no levitating mountains??
>>18031689>By God's death,Stop blaspheming.
>>18032532It helps keep track of who is who and who is saying what to use names as labels. Fully anonymous discussion works for boards like /b/, but for extended discussion on certain topics, having specific labels really helps.Now Istinja Djinni the right label to use since we're back to Jinn.Do you remember when you went on and on and on and _ON_ about a natural English sentence using an inclusive "or", even pulling out things about constructed languages to do anything to justify its semantic possibility? That's how you always approach any written document. So talking about texts with you isn't productive since you'll start going to absurd places like inclusive "or" statements. No, we've gotta go to external reality, where things are open for objective examination and testing. No knot-twisting can be done there.https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3316 says "Cover your utensils and tie your water skins, and close your doors and keep your children close to you at night, as the Jinns spread out at such time and snatch things away."When's the last time a home security camera recorded a Jinn taking utensils, water, or children?No "well maybe it's an inclusive 'or'" is available here. It's an objective matter.
>>18032532Now for the theological side of it:>you cannot hide away from the supernatural beings in your bibleThere are almost no demons, the closest equivalent to a Jinn (though not identical), in the entire Tanakh. Other than Satan there's maybe one in the book of Daniel who is actually said to do something in the text. Maybe.We see a huge increase in their activity in the Gospels. They themselves say they know who Jesus is, so they appear to be gathering in a specific place since they're interested in what's going on there.But the Bible had said in Zechariah 13:2 that "On that day...I will remove both the prophets and the unclean spirit from the land". Revelation 20 had said that, after the destruction of Jerusalem, Satan would be bound, and this presumably includes his demons as well (otherwise it would be a rather pointless exercise). We find secular support from this from things like Plutarch's On The Failure of the Oracles, where around this time he writes about how the oracles aren't working anymore.
>>18032659ahaha caught on to you, what a miserable liar trying to hide behind atheism when he is just a christard who believes in miraculous beings and appearances. Why don't you want to resume the last conversation? I just linked it to you, here I will repost it just for you again https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17982943/#17998960 There are no Marian apparitions squirting boob milk in the mouth of Christian men caught on camera guess that means your religion is false.>>18032677You admitted that your argument is stronger against judeochristianity after I educated you on what your texts teach. I showed you the understanding of the Jews too which you were defending, there is no going back now. Show me flying mountains or Christianity is fake. Your cope about a verse talking about the end of times does not solve anything
>>18032697>trying to hide behind atheismI never claimed to be an atheist. Staying neutral on which religion specifically I'm advocating avoids trite and irrelevant attempts at digression such as:>There are no Marian apparitions squirting boob milk in the mouth of Christian menWhich you should know doesn't even work with me since I make it very clear I'm a Protestant P:>Why don't you want to resume the last conversation? I just linked it to youSure:>Your entire argument is "Islam not real because Jinn". And that rests on Jinn (P) supposedly haven't been proven true and therefore Jinn (P) and by extension Islam are false. But they have. We see today that there are no Jinn taking water, utensils, or children. We have advanced surveillance and thoroughly investigate every missing child. Not the slightest hint of Jinn activity. Ever.>You admitted that your argument is stronger against judeochristianityI said:"...anon your entire argument now is "actually, your argument is even STRONGER than you realized. The major religion you thought was an exception? Nope, you can disprove that too". You're telling me I don't have enough faith in the power of this argument and should use it against even more people, not somehow refuting it."At absolute best you're arguing only that we would both be wrong, which doesn't in the slightest recuse Islam. But if you insist on going down this route: Preterist Christianity is immune to this since it holds that Satan and demons are bound per Revelation and Zechariah and have been since the first century AD. So not seeing them today is expected. >Show me flying mountains or Christianity is fake. See? Trying to spin off into side issues. We're sticking to Jinn, anon, since it's something you can pull an "inclusive 'or'" on. That was by far the worst faith argument I have ever seen someone double, triple, and quadruple-down on. With you, we need to examine something there is absolutely no conceivable room for such twisting.
>>18032843You were pretending to be an atheist, and in other conversations with you you refuse to share your beliefs. You being a protestant is irrelevant, your fellow Christians who read the same book as you believe in miraculous apparitions. It's your interpretation vs theirs. There is nothing in the bible that says you can no longer send a legion of demons into a herd of pigs anymore the same way there is nothing that says Angels just stop appearing to save your ass. Your heretical sect of Christianity (with no scriptural basis) will at best save you from some expectations but nothing else that is miraculous and caught on camera.>but they have.>proceeds to use how they supposedly weren't proven true as his evidenceAnd that's exactly why your argument is fallacious lmao. What can I expect out of a guy who literally believes in an illogical deity? This isn't the first time I caught you making stupid blunders like this.>side issuesYes I am aware you don't like your hypocrisy and double standards being exposed. Even your cope doesn't save you btw, it's very clear according to the bible that Satan and his accomplices are active https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%204%3A1-2%2C%202%20Corinthians%2011%3A13-15&version=NIV
>>18032843I am expecting footage of frog demons btw
>>18032881>You were pretending to be an atheistNah. Staying neutral avoids digressions like the stuff about Mary or whataboutism about the Bible.>There is nothing in the bibleDidn't we just look at the passages?>with no scriptural basisNot only is there strong scriptural basis, since it directly says the powers of darkness will be bound, there's even powerful historical evidence! Take a look at this from J.P. Holding's website, if you've heard of him: https://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2022/05/today-i-have-special-guest-piece-by.html>nothing that says Angels just stop appearing to save your assYou're referring to the Psalm. Psalms are just poems, songs. They aren't literal. The Bible itself does say not to take this Psalm this way. Satan cites it to Jesus to try and get him to jump off of a building in Luke 4:9-11! So the Bible itself shows us that this very verse is a textbook example of scripture that the wicked can twist.>your argument is fallaciousLet me ask you a question anon. Picture a world where Jinn do not exist. Other than Muhammad's statements, in what way does what people observe in that world differ from what people in our world observe?>it's very clear according to the bible that Satan and his accomplices are activeThese were written prior to the destruction of the Temple. 70 AD, when the Temple was destroyed, is when the latter parts of Revelation were fulfilled. This includes Satan being bound.
>>18031656>Do you have some sort of consistent, objective standard for figuring out what that hidden meaning is? No, it takes discernment and isn't subject to algorithms. As it is irl.>If not, it's just making things up that sound good to you.Non-sequitur.>We can look at any dictionary and find a word's actual meaning. This is a great starting point but it proves insufficient time and time again and entire books have to be published about it. You're slowly moving from "mere" bias to actual dunning-kruger territory. >>According to Hebrews, they do.>Do you mean Hebrews the people or Hebrews the book? Hebrew culture, the one you agreed in >>18030728 uses spiritual meanings. Are you fact-checking yourself now?>We know, for an absolute fact, that they make up false explanations for God's words with stuff like this.We assume, based mostly on materialism and dunning-kruger, that they do.>>18031672>>Right, so the text doesn't actually "outright tell us" that we need non-standard interpretation in these cases.>Anon it directly says these are symbolicThe goalpost was "outright telling us" that non-standard interpretation is being used. This goalpost was not met. You are correct the interpretation is symbolic. You're just not correct in assuming these meanings are reserved for special occasions and should be secondary in so-called regular scriptural usage.This is your personal bias and not present in the culture that produced these texts. >Ever notice these hidden meanings are only in genres whose specific purpose is hidden meanings?Like Scripture?>We can easily find these dividing lines, they're called genres anon.Anachronism.>The [gnostic and Church Father] methods are exactly identical.And yet they produce completely different results. Again I urge you to ask yourself - what better evidence could you have of paradigm mismatch if not this? Having to shove gnostic, rabbinical, pagan and Church Father interpretations all into one random umbrella.
>>18032950Hold on a minute.>We assume, based mostly on materialismAnon. Look at my quote of what they were saying about what God supposedly said about gnats. Really analyze and digest my point there since it's an important one, but it feels as though you skipped over it.
>>18032955I did skip over it, because bringing up cases where Rabbis might have missed the meaning doesn't actually affect the points I'm making. Misunderstandings happen in all traditions and schools of thought, some happen to stick with it, some don't. We could spend the rest of this thread's bump limit discussing cases where Rabbis (or Protestants) missed the plot and the discussion would not move forward one bit. The actual meat of the disagreement is that you insist on an anachronistic modernist approach and you can't seem to justify it in any way besides "but everything else seems nonsensical ". Yes, that is what happens when your approach is limited. That is the point.
>>18032932No you are just afraid of me attacking your position, this is the same reason you ran from OP's topic. You would do everything possible to not discuss your own religion.>Didn't we just look at the passages?No we did not. You provided nothing substantial in fact those passages make things worse for you. Jesus did not return in 2000 years that means there is 1000 years of Satanic activity where you have failed to provide footage of frog demons next to presidents and other world leaders.>They aren't literalAh of course, the standard christian cope lmao. Jesus did not reply that it was just a poem or song, in fact he proved Satan wrong. And again all this to avoid the fact that your entire argument is a fallacious.>muh hypotheticalsI already explained to you that I believe there is no other possible world because God decided to create this one>These were written prior to the destruction of the TempleSo what? There is nowhere that says after 70 AD Satanic activity stops.
>>18032980>I already explained to you that I believe there is no other possible world because God decided to create this oneThis has nothing to do with my question. Are you incapable of answering "what temperature would it be in your room if someone had turned the thermostat down three degrees"? No. You understand what I'm asking and how to answer it. No knot-twisting about allowed Mr. Inclusive Or. Answer my question. What today would we see differently in a world without Jinn?
>>18032980>You provided nothing substantialZechariah outright says God will remove both the prophets and the unclean spirits from the land. We're in that time now. No prophets. No demons.Similarity, Revelation says that after the Temple is destroyed, Satan will be bound. The Temple, surely enough, was destroyed. Hence Satan is bound. As must be his demons, since otherwise it would be a rather pointless exercise.>Jesus did not return in 2000 years He returned around 70 AD and was _literally_ seen in the clouds! Check out https://www.revelationrevolution.org/jesus-the-son-of-man-was-seen-in-the-clouds-in-a-d-66/.>Ah of course, the standard christian copePsalms not being literal is a cope? Anon have you ever read them? They're full-blown poems. I am 100% convinced you will be completely incapable of finding a single educated person who agrees with you that the Psalms are mean to be literal. Any scholarly writing on the Psalms will immediately make it clear no one thinks they're literal. Random example look at https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/99203467/Metaphor-in-the-Psalms-libre.pdf?1677529608=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DMetaphors_in_the_Psalms.pdf&Expires=1759187452&Signature=Fo2BV2vmlKh5qELNcS6oS9H~45VkeiJ2aIVtZpMbEv84rFayeDQWlJJ0rZfKKZSKsRKQ~jRcsFg9NOMJsugkINNdx~lSXxicXbFm4GEOU6vq9cahxmqJ9IoiuoYkLBHwi-wChpftNmv1NfoLbVREN8wUXyR5-5BGkhcO8ujssQzD1H2BCSCIjBufLo~dRd6jC3QBv7tXkuvF5tZKqcjwGzJ4J0UlPOXFIjBLU-hY65bVncraKX3nzpF41wvb0vehPvO6rmN1q1-ibN9muaLUSq7kLDRxkIPGdhvUc55qHWUz9EjKcPjEHPyahpoDBx5uXg64xvXCSgLdjVsaRwj3pQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA, where it talks about how "It has been said that Shakespeare’s language is so consistently and thoroughly metaphoric that he seems to have done his very thinking in metaphor. A similar claim can be made for the poets who wrote the Old Testament Psalms" and starts talking about how the very beginning of the very first Psalm is three metaphors.
>>18033583I already entertained this stupid hypothetical of yours the first time you started using your silly name. That doesn't change the fact your argument is based on flawed reasoning and it destroys your own religion if you insist on being a moron and still use it lmao. Imagine seething this hard to take down the truth ahaha>>18033606>As must be his demons, since otherwise it would be a rather pointless exerciseNice opinion but you have no justification other than you wanting it to be that way it seems.>He returned around 70 AD and was _literally_ seen in the clouds!Sure thing bro, try that on an atheist historian. We know already how Christians love to butcher history so you can keep your shitty blog to yourself. But anyway this means as I have quoted from Revelation that there is 1000 years of locked up Satan at most. Where is the video of the frog demon influencing Trump bro? Time is up according to scripture. Or let me guess the 1000 years is also not literal but the locked up Satan is.>They're full-blown poemsHow does that exclude them from being literal? Wut? And plenty of people believe it actually means created angels tasked with protecting you and not appearing on camera somehow.
>>18033655>I already entertained this stupid hypothetical of yours the first time you started using your silly nameI don't recall ever getting an answer. I want you to tell me anon: what would we see differently between our world, and a world where Muhammad was wrong and there aren't any Jinn?>Nice opinion but you have no justificationLook at the passage itself. Revelation 20:3 says Satan is bound "to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore". That's not accomplished if the Kingdom of Satan still stands and he still has demons deceiving people. 1 Timothy 4:1 talks about how "some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons"; you haven't stopped Satan's deceiving of the world unless you've dealt with Satan's entire kingdom.Revelation 12:9 says "The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him". So the point isn't just Satan's defeat but that of Satan's angels - the demons - as well.Zechariah 13:2 said that he will "remove the unclean spirits". In Matthew 12:26, when Jesus was accused of exorcising demons by demonic power, he described that as "If Satan drives out Satan" - "Satan" being like, say, "Hitler" where it's used for both the evil leader and his forces, like when we say "Hitler invaded Russia" despite the individual never setting foot there. >try that on an atheist historianI have many, many times. I actually believe this to be the single strongest argument for Christianity and it's the primary reason that I'm a Christian.>that there is 1000 years of locked up Satan at mostAre you taking Revelation literally too? The book itself says that it's symbolic. Look at Revelation 17:15 for instance where the book interprets itself: "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages". "A thousand years" isn't a countdown, it means a long long time.
>>18033655>Or let me guess the 1000 years is also not literal but the locked up Satan is.The locked up Satan isn't literal, there's not a literal chain on him. He and the demons are removed from the land, as Zechariah says. They're not literally chained up with metal.>How does that exclude them from being literal?Did you read what the actual scholar said there? Metaphor is their very essence. The verse first verse of the very first Psalm is three metaphors and they just keep going like that. >And plenty of people believe it actually means created angels tasked with protecting you and not appearing on camera somehow.You're not talking to one of them
>>18033900You did and all you could do is just repeat your stupid claims. Still fallacious and still an argument against judeochristianity btw>Look at the passage itself.I did, nowhere does it say that his minions are locked up which means you made it up because the text alone is not convenient for you. Also another nice butchering of agency in Matthew there.>the primary reason that I'm a ChristianUsing Christard made up history? Wow that explains a lot.>The anonymous author of the work writes that he is copying from the writings of the old Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, whom the author calls Joseph ben Gorion (יוסף בן גוריון).>The author writes that he is copying the works of Roman-Jewish historian Josephus to whom its name refers. It was composed in the 10th century in Byzantine Italy. The Ethiopic version of Josippon is recognized as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church.[3] It is also part of the Coptic Bible.[4]No serious secular historian believed a man walked on clouds in 66AD sorry but you are delusional.>"A thousand years" isn't a countdown, it means a long long time.ahahaha of course, what you like is literal what you don't is just symbolic. It's referenced multiple times too.>The locked up Satan isn't literalThen there is nothing holding him back, he is just symbolically being locked up and it doesn't actually reflect reality of what happened. I don't give a fuck if chains were used or not.>Did you read what the actual scholar said there?Yes he said that Jesus had no problem with believing Angels would save him but Satan's calling was not natural and thus against God's design which means he used it wrong. He like Jesus and Satan believed Angels are actually tasked with protecting his righteous.I am aware you are a heretic, you were asking me about someone educated who took the angels to be real.
>>18033900Here's another such person, Augustine actually believed it was possible for the Angels to save him.
>>18033900And as for your Zechariah cope since you don't seem to be taking it symbolically then I am sorry to inform you but none of these things happened yet. There is rain all over the world, and they sure as hell don't worship Jesus as the only God, celebrate the festival of Tabernacles and sacrifice at the altar. Also if you are going to cope by saying that's another day or whatever, your very own verse says >I will banish the names of the idols from the land, and they will be remembered no more,” declares the LordThere are idolatrous religions with pagan deities that are worshiped daily. Even in the holy land (Jerusalem specifically) where they have museum for them https://www.jpost.com/must/article-728357 where they are being remembered and their names highlighted
>>18033900No fucking way I just read >>18031133 and you have exposed yourself to be someone who believes the earth is 7500 years old and you don't believe life on Earth evolved... This explains so much and to think you were larping as an atheist. Please don't tell me you are a flat earther too lmao
>>18034416I'll get to the theology, but first, you didn't reply to:>I want you to tell me anon: what would we see differently between our world, and a world where Muhammad was wrong and there aren't any Jinn?How convenient that you left this completely out of your replies. Always looking for where you can find something to say "no this is an inclusive 'or'" and quadruple down on it. What is your answer to this question, anon?
>>18034933I already answered it and told you where. Do you believe dinosaur bones are evidence of demons that have been locked away?
>>18034951>I already answered itYou refused to answer. Like I said, your answer was like refusing to tell me "what temperature would it be if someone had turned the thermostat down three degrees?". You can answer that and you can answer my question anon. What is the answer? We can look at the theology but everything must be answered.>dinosaur bonesYou're thoroughly vindicating my approach where I stayed neutral in our previous discussion. As I knew you would, you're determined to introduce utterly irrelevant side-topics while refusing to answer basic questions about what I asked.
>>18034975>We can look at the theologyWe did and now we are looking at yours. But you have yet to reply. Also again do you believe dinosaurs are demons yes or no? Do you believe the devil put them there to trick you? You like to pretend you are on the side of evidence but when the reality of the world is presented you want to deny it. So how do you cope? Last Thursdayism?
>>18034988See? Refusing to engage with the actual point and trying to argue "well it would mean you're wrong too" instead, and going off into an entirely irrelevant tangent about creation vs. evolution. You're looking for some "or" you can argue is inclusive, so to speak. Texts can be endlessly twisted and we can't see the past. Plenty of potential "this is an inclusive 'or'" there. But what we see today with our own eyes about the present can't be. That is why you're unwilling to talk about it.What would the difference be between what we see in that Jinnless world and this world, anon? You won't answer this question but must if we're to proceed.
>>18035010>what we see today with our own eyes about the present can't beOh another blunder! Paul as I have quoted before says exactly the opposite. And by admitting this then you have just invalidated your bible it seems. You see I like to take arguments to their logical conclusion, even flawed ones. Why? Because it shows your hypocrisy. So you are free to pathetically struggle to disprove my tradition but guess what in the worst case where I am wrong, you are going down too.
>>18035010>>18034988For the viewers at home who don't know what I mean with this inclusive or stuff, look at the discussion at https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17347236/#q17359574 where this guy argues for about twenty posts about how a normal English sentence must be using an inclusive "or" to mean "and" because it's what his position needs. This is how this guy handles texts, even a normal one in modern English.
>>18035017See? More irrelevant tangents. You know what I'm saying anon but like the inclusive or it's nothing but twist, twist, twist. Something like unedited camera footage however cannot be twisted like you always try to do with words. Even mine. Even here.
>>18035027We have photos of star formation but you don't trust those, however you trust forged christian documents of flying men in clouds? Where is your standard of evidence bro? Where are the demons promised in the bible and christian tradition btw?>Spectra: spirits that trouble houses or solitary places[A 5]>Obsession: spirits that trouble people at various times of the day, such as incubi and succubae[A 6]>Possession: spirits that enter inwardly into a person to trouble them[A 7]>Faries: illusionary spirits that prophesy, consort, and transport their servants[A 8][4]
>>18035036See? It's more irrelevant digression and attempts to argue "well you would be wrong too". Yet a refusal to answer a very basic question. What would the difference be between a world without Jinn, and our world?You act as though if I were wrong, somehow it would mean you couldn't be too, which is extremely silly.
>>18035043>You act as though if I were wrong, somehow it would mean you couldn't be too, which is extremely silly.See unlike you I don't rely on fallacious arguments so nope!>As detailed in his preface, the main sources of this work were that of historically confessed witches, judicial case history and the Bible itself. He also amassed various dissertations on magical studies to expand his education on the relationships between infernal spirits and men. James generally sought to prove that the devilish arts have always been yet still are, but also explains the justification of a witch trial and the punishments which a practitioner of the dark arts merits.[A 1]Why did Christians believe this? Don't they know that you would destroy their (and yours) religion with cameras?
>>18035049>See unlike you I don't rely on fallacious arguments so nope!Then what's even the point of trying to argue that you think Christianity would have this issue?>Why did Christians believe this?You're shooting yourself in the foot here. People in the olden days believed in witches and sprites in their world because they were superstitious. Medieval Arabia was the same and, sure enough, we see Muhammad talk frequently about sprites and witchcraft. >Don't they know that you would destroy their (and yours) religion with cameras?And you seem to be acknowledging that modern ubiquitous camera coverage refutes such notions. No sprites. No witches. But this disproves Muhammad, who believed that sprites were very much an active part of the world and heavily incorporated this into Islam. Daily rituals you're supposed to do because of them are part of the sunnah. But today we know: they aren't there.
>>18035105>Then what's even the point of trying to argue that you think Christianity would have this issue?I cannot believe how dense you are. I told you multiple times that I believe this is a shit tier argument that disproves no religion at all. However in your hatred of the truth you insist on still using this fallacious argument. So under YOUR standard you just apostated by denying the bible and what your tradition and theologians understood from reading it. Let's take a look again at what they believed.>And thus demons can work miracles, that is, things which rouse man's astonishment, by reason of their being beyond his power and outside his sphere of knowledge. For even a man by doing what is beyond the power and knowledge of another, leads him to marvel at what he has done, so that in a way he seems to that man to have worked a miracle.>It is to be noted, however, that although these works of demons which appear marvelous to us are not real miracles, they are sometimes nevertheless something real. Thus the magicians of Pharaoh by the demons' power produced real serpents and frogs. And "when fire came down from heaven and at one blow consumed Job's servants and sheep; when the storm struck down his house and with it his children—these were the work of Satan, not phantoms"; as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx, 19).>But today we know: they aren't there.Christianity deboonked
>>18035128>I believe this is a shit tier argument Then it should be easy to answer my simple question. What would we be seeing differently in a world without Jinn? >Let's take a look again at what they believed.Anon I'm a Protestant, I don't hold the writings of random old dudes to be quasi-scripture like Catholics do. Augustine is just some historical figure, I don't think he's a divine being I can pray to like Catholics. His words aren't of any more weight than as a historical source. It would be like me quoting the Shi'ite Nahj al-Balagha to you.
>>18035157>It's a bad argument so therefore you must still entertain itlmao does not even follow wtf?>His words aren't of any more weight than as a historical sourceYes and it shows how early Christians that do not try to appeal to atheists read the same book you are reading. Sorry to inform you but they believe in demons constantly attacking men so much so that you need Angels to guard you. You refuse to engage me on your scripture because it scares you that you have to admit the same things they do. Earlier you asked me about how scholars interpret these things and you were confident how there would be nobody that believes in Angels protecting you and all that. I have shown you multiple from the Psalm verse in question but have some more. You also refuse to engage on how your young earth creationism bullshit contradicts observed reality. Not in an absence of evidence kind of way but actually goes against it.
>>18035175If it's a bad argument then engaging with and refuting it should be simple. But you can't answer the most basic question: what would we be seeing differently today in a world without Jinn?>You refuse to engage me on your scriptureI want you to answer something your reply ignored. Then we'll go back to it. But after the "inclusive 'or'" it's obvious that textual evidence can't be the main point of discussion with you since you sat there and for dozens of posts argued a modern English sentence was using an inclusive "or", which is borderline psychotic. So since your approach is to twist texts, even modern ones, even in ways so patently false as that, something that involves modern, observable, absolutely untwistable evidence is a much more productive avenue of discussion. You can't twist surveillance footage. And if Jinn steal children, utensils, and water at night, we should have it.
>>18035200It is refuted on the grounds that it is bad reasoning and also because I already engaged you on what you want. I know you have a thing for repetition but you are boring.>Then we'll go back to it. Bro you are already a proven liar. Fact is you have invalidated christianity with your stupidity. Even your silly man walked on clouds in 66AD version
>>18035205>It is refuted on the grounds that it is bad reasoningMuhammad says Jinn steal utensils, water, and children at night among doing many many other things. As you've pointed out, this sort of belief was common back then.If it really happened, we would be seeing it on camera. We don't. Because it doesn't happen. Muhammad is wrong.>I already engaged you on what you want. You explicitly refused to engage. You didn't answer. Tell me anon: what would be different?>you have invalidated christianity See? Instead of attempting to address this argument, you have to resort to whataboutism, with the classic "inclusive 'or'" maneuvers.
>>18035224The bible makes many claims about the world that are just not true according to evidence and not just a supposed lack, like for example your belief in 7500 years old Earth and the demons/dinosaurs Christians constantly claim to suffer from. Therefore because it didn't happen, the biblical authors are wrong.>nooo you can't expose my hypocrisy and absolutely nonsense beliefs it's whataboutism don't care that's how biblical Jesus argued too, cope and seethe
>>18035229And so we have the conclusion. No answer is possible because this is an observable, provable error. Muhammad was simply parroting the same superstition many ancients believed, like the examples of witches you yourself have brought forth. You can attempt to divert the conversation, but when it comes to actually answering this objection? There can only be your silence.
>>18035234I already did answer check the archives>this is an observable, provable errorlike stellar nurseries disproving your religion? or the fact we have human settlements older than the earth?
>>18035234>like the examples of witches you yourself have brought forthThanks for admitting your bible is simply a result of the authors "parroting the same superstition many ancients believed"
>>18035237>I already did answer check the archives"I believe there is no other possible world because God decided to create this one" is not an answer. Not even a dodge. It's a refusal to engage. Like saying you can't answer whether a man walking in the rain would be wet if he hadn't brought his umbrella because you don't believe in the metaphysical existence of possible worlds. Weak and thin.Just like your attempted pivot to creation vs. evolution, which is coming from nowhere and obviously serves no purpose but to change the subject. But here let's tie it in. What did Jinn evolve from anon? Are there ancestral dino-jinn? Did they come from sea-jinn like we supposedly came from sea creatures? Were they stealing dinosaur children, utensils, and water? Did they evolve sentience over time like we supposedly did, or have they always had it? Is Jinn society hundreds of millions of years old but they need you to not use bones as toilet paper so that they can eat them?
>>18035247That's not even the first time I answered this lmao, archives bro they are there for a reason. As for you desperate attempt, they were created before us and they are spiritual beings so my answer is I don't know. Unlike you I won't make shit up. As for humans I believe in pic rel, maybe something similar can be done with them?
>>18035272>That's not even the first time I answered thisIf you once gave a more substantive answer (and you didn't, ever), what was it?>they were created before us and they are spiritual beings so my answer is I don't knowI think we'll be hearing that answer a lot. Next question: where can I find a missing child investigation that appears to be from Jinn activity? Muhammad said they snatch children.>maybe something similar can be done with them?So there are beastial Jinn that sentient Jinn were elevated from? What do these beastial Jinn do? Do we see any sign of them, either?
>>18033917>The verse first verse of the very first Psalm is three metaphors and they just keep going like that.You mean poetry? Also, verse 2 is not a metaphor:>>>but whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who meditates on his law day and night.Vespers and other spiritual practices are a thing.
>>18035272>>18035280To make the issue clearer, by advocating both Jinn and evolution, you now have to have an entire Jinn ecosystem that produced sentient Jinn, as modern humans come from a population of apes. This makes the problem even worse since now we've got good Jinn, bad Jinn, (the Koran and hadith say there are both), but now also bestial Jinn. It makes the problem even worse.
>>18035280I did and I told you when ITT. Can even predict every question you are going to ask because you already did so. Anyway got to go for a while.>So there are beastial Jinn that sentient Jinn were elevated from?Maybe? Not aware of any claim like that supported by the scholars. But with humans we certainly have evidence of our ancestors, the same ones you are blindly rejecting because >muh bible that you don't even trust when it tells you about demons taking people captive.>inb4 it's a metaphor!!cope some more it's funny
>>18035297Oh you have a problem with that thing you just made up? Too bad, Christianity false then
>>18035302>I did and I told you when ITTNo, you haven't. You have never given a substantive response to this question. Ever.Because it is unanswerable. It is what observably and unquestionably proves that Muhammad was mistaken.
>>18030146Pre-platonic religion was neigh universally artistically specific. Weither that be Hindu gods with thier exactly 345,604 fires they can spew from their anus, or Romans requireing thier columns to be exactly 62.5 cubits high or else your wife will get a hernia.
>>18032968The issue is a much deeper one. Really read what the Talmuds says there. It says "God said this because gnats have no orifice for removing waste". If this had been some more spiritual statement like "God said this because he seeks that which is trash", you would have bought it and we would have no real way of testing if they were right or not. But here they gave it a meaning that we can actually test. And we know that no, that's not true. It shows that they aren't tapping into some metaphysical well that's revealing truths to them. It shows that, like I said, they're just making things up as they go along.
>>18035568>The issue is a much deeper oneHow is this "deeper" than what I described? I granted they could have made any number of mistakes.>they dropped the ball hence they're just making things up all alongNon sequitur.Again, particular cases where a mistake was made - however "deep" - don't move the discussion forward because they can neither justify your over-generalization or deflect from the bias that produces this generalization, more in >>18032950. You're a prime example of post-enlightenment algorithmic thinking "if it doesn't run on a propositional algorithm and objective empiria, it's subjective made-up stuff". This is not the paradigm that Hebrews have. That is our joke of a paradigm.
>>18035313Don't care if you find my previous answers unsatisfactory. I can only at most guess things about such a world but nobody has experienced it nor is there any logical entailment that necessarily must follow if it were this way or another so it will remain just that an unjustified guess about God's design. Which again I believe is impossible to change now that he has decreed it to be this way so it's an ultimately pointless exercise. I know you have no problem inventing bullshit with no scriptural basis about your religion but that can't be me sorry. However I don't see in what way any of this could possibly resolve the reasoning error in your argument or the problem for your religion this retardation causes.>It is what observably and unquestionably provesAs we have established your beliefs about a 7500 year old creation directly go against observation. You literally just have to look at the sky as God says. So on every level you shoot yourself in the foot lmao. The truth is you don't care about any of this, or else you would have actually defended how your witches and demons are totally different than ours. This is a sad tactic to run away from OP's topic and more recently the internal scriptural flaws of your silly sect's beliefs.
>>18030146>Can any Christian explain to mechristians don't read the bible so no they can't answer
>>18036006>Don't care if you find my previous answers unsatisfactoryThat would require them to be answers of some sort. They are not answers in any form. They are you outright refusing to answer.Because there can be no answer. It's sunnah for all Muslims to perform nightly rituals to keep Jinn from taking their utensils, water, or children and Muhammad says outright that they do it: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3316. He says donkeys bray because of Jinn. He says shooting stars are because of Jinn. You're even supposed to protect yourself from them whenever you enter a latrine: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/26816/how-can-a-person-conceal-himself-from-the-jinn-when-in-the-toiletMuhammad, like many superstitious ancients, believed in a world packed with active sprites and built this into his religion. We know today it's false. Jinn do not exist. They don't steal anything or anyone at night.>but nobody has experienced itMuhammad fundamentally disagrees with you. According to him people get full-on kidnapped by Jinn. Muhammad says "There are in Medina jinns who have accepted Islam, so when you see any one of them, pronounce a warning to it for three days, and if they appear before you after that, then kill it for that is a devil." in https://sunnah.com/muslim:2236. You're disagreeing with Muhammad himself when you say nobody has experienced it.>Which again I believe is impossible to change now That's not the question. The question is how a world without Jinn would be different from our's.You have to refuse to answer because the only answer you can give is "it would be no different". Because there are no Jinn. Muhammad thought they were a major part of the world but they do not exist.
>>18035590>How is this "deeper" than what I described?It goes right to the very base of it. We can see, directly, that their method isn't something accurate.Let me ask you a question anon. How do you think these interpretations are being made? Specifically. Describe a specific methodology that can be followed.>I granted they could have made any number of mistakes.How do you determine when they're making a mistake and when they're not?
>>18036444>literally the same refuted and irrelevant shit he has been posting all this timeboring, you're clearly low on materials so you are just repeating yourself. You know what isn't? The 1000 years being up and you needing cameras for your frog demons next to Trump, the website from your cult you linked me specifically says it is literal lmao. Keep shooting yourself in the foot idiot
>>18036444And have another where they argue for a literal interpretation of 1000 years. The funniest part about it is this though>The fact that Jerusalem and Palestine were ruled by Muslim emperors beginning in the seventh century A.D. is not evidence against this view. Remember that throughout much of Old Testament history, Israel was also ruled by foreign emperors.The rule of Jesus was under Islam
>>18036444>Revelation 20 is a stumbling block for many Preterists. Preterist attempts to understand this chapter often result in questionable exegesis. Partial Preterists will often assert that the thousand year reign is two thousand years and counting while Full Preterists often claim that this thousand year period is not literal and may only be a couple years long. History confirms a more literal reading of these prophecies. As emphasized in this Preterist commentary on Revelation 20, there literally was a thousand year reign of Christianity in Jerusalem before Islam became the dominant religion in the region.haha the bible sure is a stumbling block to Christians, even he admits that only a literal reading makes sense of your nonsense theology
>>18036444why do you follow an unintelligible interpretation? you could just read the bible without inserting your made up bullshit that's not supported by any historical event like Rabbis walking on clouds in 66 AD!
>>18036941>boringI suppose you're only stimulated by finding things you can twist inclusive "or" style. You need to answer me anon. 1)What would we be seeing differently in a world without Jinn?2)You said "nobody has experienced" Jinn. This fundamentally contradicts Muhammad's words in https://sunnah.com/muslim:2236. How do you reconcile your position with his words there?>literal interpretationWhat possible point could there be talking to someone about complex, ancient texts when they'll take a simple, modern English sentence and for dozens of posts argue "this is using an inclusive 'or'"? I cannot fathom something more in bad faith. We need to look at things in the objective world, beyond trying to interpret written words, given the fact that you do this kind of thing with them.
>>18037789I said nobody has experienced your fantasy world. And anyway your own source makes a justification for why it must be literal, you lost and Christianity is deboonked
>>18037789>Though some people are temporarily earthbound after their resurrection as Jesus may have been in the Gospels, not all specters are earthbound resurrection bodies. Some specters are angels. According to Genesis 6:1-4, Matthew 28:2 and Hebrews 13:2, heavenly beings or angels are able to leave heaven to visit earth. The fact that heavenly beings are able to descend to earth is also confirmed in revelatory NDE’s. Though heavenly beings sometimes appear on earth in the brilliant luminosity of their heavenly bodies as was the case in Matthew 28:2-3, they can also assume human form according to Genesis 19:1, Judges 6:21-22 and Hebrews 13:2. Because angels can appear on earth in human form just like earthbound resurrection bodies, it is not always possible to identify with certainty whether a specter is an angel in human form or an earthbound resurrection body–both can appear indistinguishable from living breathing, flesh and blood human beings.Why is there no camera footage of this bro?