There is No Biblical Basis of The Propsperity Gospel

[Logicman]

Do you really ... you wasted Your Money dude, you honestly and in all seriousness, quoted the Zohar as proof that first Century Jews believed in the Trinity .... if you can still do that after 2 degrees in biblical theology I would get my Money back.

BTW, you have 2 degrees and you still don't know basic biblical greek?

You're full of folly, Racky. That link was self explanatory in showing early Jewish thought that confirmed the concept of the Trinity. It was clear that it was extra-biblical.

Aren't you the one who refuses to believe in the deity of Jesus, when the Bible clearly reveals it?

 

[Logicman]

Gosh, a right wing ultra conservative magazine, with a neocon blogger doesn't like a left wing person. Shocking, I says SHOCKING.

<face palm>

Not another Che Guevara fan.

 

[Logicman]

Not only that, but he quoted the Zohar OUT OF CONTEXT. The Zohar talks about many different numbers as having mystical connections, the number 3 is just one of them. The number 7 is also. But, well. can't let facts get in the way of an argument.

Ramoss, anything you don't like is "out of context." Get a new argument.

 

[Fearandloathing]

There is no Biblical basis for the prosperity gospel. To pretend that those who have wealth and success are somehow blessed by God contradicts the very teachings of the Bible and perverts scripture.

Discuss...

Seriously?

There are people who believe that?


Oops, I see a camel and a needle somewhere in there

 

[kjwins]

<face palm>

Not another Che Guevara fan.

Just a few questions, answer if you like.

1. How do feel about Israel, do you think we are headed to the final battle.

2. Have you ever heard, that the Christian Right are Fascist.

3. Have you ever heard the term Crisis Culture.

I'm not messing with you. I want to know what you think.

 

[Logicman]

Just a few questions, answer if you like.

1. How do feel about Israel, do you think we are headed to the final battle.

I support Israel. And the final battle isn't until after the Millennial reign of Christ.

2. Have you ever heard, that the Christian Right are Fascist.

3. Have you ever heard the term Crisis Culture.

I'm not messing with you. I want to know what you think.

2. Yes, I've heard it.
3. Yes.

 

[kjwins]

I support Israel. And the final battle isn't until after the Millennial reign of Christ.



2. Yes, I've heard it.
3. Yes.

Thank You

 

[cpwill]

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Matthew/19-24

:lol: you are attempting to use that statement opposite of how it was intended

Placed in somewhat better context:

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

The culture at the time assumed that the rich were more likely to make it into heaven. They could afford all the necessary sacrifices, had the surplus to make great gifts, and their wealth was often considered a sign of Gods' blessings. Jesus was saying 'even these people whom you think are more likely to make it can't make it on their works - no one can make it on their works, no one can make it by buying enough sheep or birds to sacrifice, with man, it is impossible for even these to get through. That is why the disciples were astonished - if even the rich could not afford enough sacrifices, how screwed were they, and everyone else? Jesus replies, it requires God.

And it does.

 

[RAMOSS]

<face palm>

Not another Che Guevara fan.

No, neither a fan or a critic. Just laughing to think that you think that source has any connection with reality.

 

[RAMOSS]

Ramoss, anything you don't like is "out of context." Get a new argument.

Well, then, learn how to read in context, and stop quote mining. You know. use some intelligence, and scholarship. Quote mining is either intellectually dishonest, or just plain stupid. When it comes to Christian use of the Jewish scriptures, it is more intellectually dishonest.

 

[Logicman]

Well, then, learn how to read in context, and stop quote mining. You know. use some intelligence, and scholarship. Quote mining is either intellectually dishonest, or just plain stupid. When it comes to Christian use of the Jewish scriptures, it is more intellectually dishonest.

Ramoss, save that for someone who values your rants. Because it's nothing more than cyber flatulence to me.

 

[ludin]

Would you like to have a debate here on true debates on the Trinity? Since I have such a lack of knowledge it should be easy right?

i have no need you have been proven wrong so that is all that is required. verse after verse proves that you are incorrect and there are many many prominent theologians that disagree with you as well as have been cited time and time again. so there is not need to have a debate with someone that has already been proven wrong.

 

[ludin]

You're full of folly, Racky. That link was self explanatory in showing early Jewish thought that confirmed the concept of the Trinity. It was clear that it was extra-biblical.

Aren't you the one who refuses to believe in the deity of Jesus, when the Bible clearly reveals it?

can't really call yourself a Christian if you don't believe Christ is who he said he was and what the bible says he was.

 

[RAMOSS]

Ramoss, save that for someone who values your rants. Because it's nothing more than cyber flatulence to me.

And here we have the psychological technique known as 'projection', where someone takes their own trait, and projects it on to another person.

 

[Logicman]

And here we have the psychological technique known as 'projection', where someone takes their own trait, and projects it on to another person.

Clearly a synaptic misfire on your part in your attribution of that.

You like Freud? You probably didn't know he was a cocaine addict, did you? And that a lot of his psychological formulations and hypotheses were inherently unfalsifiable. His daughter Anna made more sense.

 

[ludin]

Well, then, learn how to read in context, and stop quote mining. You know. use some intelligence, and scholarship. Quote mining is either intellectually dishonest, or just plain stupid. When it comes to Christian use of the Jewish scriptures, it is more intellectually dishonest.

So you are saying that the Jewish scholars that translated the
old testament were intellectually dishonest interesting.

 

[it's just me]

Job, lost everything. God blessed him With wealth, but as the bible says he got a ton of it through oppression, and in the end he left God ... what's the lesson there?

WTH? What version of Job is this?

 

[RAMOSS]

So you are saying that the Jewish scholars that translated the
old testament were intellectually dishonest interesting.

On the contrary.. .. it wasn't the Jewish scholars.. because the Jewish scholars did not translate to English. So why don't you stop being dishonest? The Septuagint also uses the word 'To Dig', not pierce.

 

[Logicman]

On the contrary.. .. it wasn't the Jewish scholars.. because the Jewish scholars did not translate to English. So why don't you stop being dishonest? The Septuagint also uses the word 'To Dig', not pierce.

Ramoss, it's not a good idea to call everyone you disagree with as dishonest. Ludin is not dishonest. He didn't say the Jewish scholars translated the OT into English. That's your Strawman and that is disingenuous.

 

[RAMOSS]

Ramoss, it's not a good idea to call everyone you disagree with as dishonest. Ludin is not dishonest. He didn't say the Jewish scholars translated the OT into English. That's your Strawman and that is disingenuous.

He said 'I didn't know you were calling the Ancient Jews translating the old statesman dishonest'.. which of course I didn't do.. The translation into the Sepitgaunt used the word 'To dig'. .. so his statement of what I claimed was incorrect and dishonest, because I didn't say that. So, it's not a straw man. It's HIS straw man, and that is indeed dishonest.

 

[ludin]

On the contrary.. .. it wasn't the Jewish scholars.. because the Jewish scholars did not translate to English. So why don't you stop being dishonest? The Septuagint also uses the word 'To Dig', not pierce.

I am not it was 40 Jewish scholars that translated the old testament into greek.
so are you saying that they were intellectually dishonest? please answer the question. if they weren't then there is nothing wrong with the old testament version of the bible.
even when compared to the oldest translations we have it is 99% accurate. with the 1% of error being grammatical or a spelling. none of which takes away from it's accuracy.

so the only one being dishonest here is you.

 

[ludin]

He said 'I didn't know you were calling the Ancient Jews translating the old statesman dishonest'.. which of course I didn't do.. The translation into the Sepitgaunt used the word 'To dig'. .. so his statement of what I claimed was incorrect and dishonest, because I didn't say that. So, it's not a straw man. It's HIS straw man, and that is indeed dishonest.

no I don't have a strawman, and yes you do. I never mentioned anything about English. there were 40 Jewish scholars that translated the old testament into greek.
this is like theology 101.

 

[ludin]

Ramoss, it's not a good idea to call everyone you disagree with as dishonest. Ludin is not dishonest. He didn't say the Jewish scholars translated the OT into English. That's your Strawman and that is disingenuous.

it is the only way he can support is failed argument is to contend that everyone else is dishonest. basically it is an ad hominem.

 

[RAMOSS]

I am not it was 40 Jewish scholars that translated the old testament into greek.
so are you saying that they were intellectually dishonest? please answer the question. if they weren't then there is nothing wrong with the old testament version of the bible.
even when compared to the oldest translations we have it is 99% accurate. with the 1% of error being grammatical or a spelling. none of which takes away from it's accuracy.

so the only one being dishonest here is you.

Point 1... the Jewish scholars who translated the original septiguant into Greek only translated the Torah. In case you didn't realize, the Psalms are not part of the Torah.
Point 2. The Greek Septuagint uses the word "To Dig' in greek. It is not 'pierce'
Point 3). I said the Christian translators used 'To Pierce' I never mentioned the Septuagint at all. That is your manufacturing. That makes it triple dishonest on your part.

So, you are either suffering a strong lack of ignorance, or a strong amount of stupidity. Definitely bulding a straw man, and then accusing me of building one?? I can tell I won't ever be able to take any statement of yours seriously again..

And, you are bring thtat up even after I pointed out the Greek was 'to dig'. Now that is just plain dishonest

 

[ludin]

Point 1... the Jewish scholars who translated the original septiguant into Greek only translated the Torah. In case you didn't realize, the Psalms are not part of the Torah.
Point 2. The Greek saeptigaunt uses the word "To Dig' in greek. It is not 'pierce'
So, you are either suffering a strong lack of ignorance, or a strong amount of stupidity.
And, you are bring thtat up even after I pointed out the Greek was 'to dig'. Now that is just plain dishonest

yet more ad hominems which show how weak your argument actually is. the only mistake I made was that it wasn't 40 it was 72 jewish scholars.

3rd century BC the jews in Alexandria translated the Septuagint into greek. they are jewish scholars. so you are calling them intellectually dishonest?
wow. you show once again why no one should believe anything you say.

this is like church history 101.

before that came the Hexpala. in which Origen had ancient Hebrew and translated them from there into greek.
you know for someone that claims to have all this knowledge your knowledge of early biblical history comes up short
and the only thing you can do is insult people which proves how lacking your argument really is.