Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Post by Claire » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:14 am

Chapabel wrote:
Claire wrote:Rev. 22:18-19, Deut. 4:2, and Prov. 30:6 are each referencing what's being said in its particular book, but the overall idea is to not add or take away from the word of God, and the Bible is a compiling of His word, so in that sense it applies to the entire Bible. But, it's key you don't overlook that those warnings are being directed at man, as in those other than God, not at God Himself.

Therefore, regarding additions to the Book of Revelation, or any book of the Bible, God Himself can add, repeat, or fill in the gaps -- the gaps having been brought about either by supernatural will, or natural causes -- whenever He chooses. And, when God chooses to speak audibly to a human being, and appoint them as His "pen", and/or supply them with a vision, it doesn't mean what's being said or seen is of that individual's own imagination, rather it ultimately is coming from Him.

So, unless you have Biblical verses that warn God Himself from doing any of that, your position He no longer communicates audibly, appoints certain people to be His "pen", nor gives visions, to who and about what He chooses, is unsupported.
Simply stated, God would not violate His own edict that nothing else be added to His word. Any such visions, revelations or hocus pocus is not from God. But everyone is entitled to be blind to this fact especially those who are not even a child of God.
Which Bible verse(s) state God's subject to that particular edict of His? And, if God's subject to it, in that the prohibitions against adding to scripture works the way you're saying it does, then how could we have a NT at all if in the OT books Deut. 4:2, and Prov. 30:6, we are warned against adding to His word? In other words, God violated His own edict, and that contradicts what you just said: "God would not violate His own edict that nothing else be added to His word".

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Post by SEG » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:07 am

Claire wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:14 am
Chapabel wrote:
Claire wrote:Rev. 22:18-19, Deut. 4:2, and Prov. 30:6 are each referencing what's being said in its particular book, but the overall idea is to not add or take away from the word of God, and the Bible is a compiling of His word, so in that sense it applies to the entire Bible. But, it's key you don't overlook that those warnings are being directed at man, as in those other than God, not at God Himself.

Therefore, regarding additions to the Book of Revelation, or any book of the Bible, God Himself can add, repeat, or fill in the gaps -- the gaps having been brought about either by supernatural will, or natural causes -- whenever He chooses. And, when God chooses to speak audibly to a human being, and appoint them as His "pen", and/or supply them with a vision, it doesn't mean what's being said or seen is of that individual's own imagination, rather it ultimately is coming from Him.

So, unless you have Biblical verses that warn God Himself from doing any of that, your position He no longer communicates audibly, appoints certain people to be His "pen", nor gives visions, to who and about what He chooses, is unsupported.
Simply stated, God would not violate His own edict that nothing else be added to His word. Any such visions, revelations or hocus pocus is not from God. But everyone is entitled to be blind to this fact especially those who are not even a child of God.
Which Bible verse(s) state God's subject to that particular edict of His? And, if God's subject to it, in that the prohibitions against adding to scripture works the way you're saying it does, then how could we have a NT at all if in the OT books Deut. 4:2, and Prov. 30:6, we are warned against adding to His word? In other words, God violated His own edict, and that contradicts what you just said: "God would not violate His own edict that nothing else be added to His word".
Hey great point Claire! I can't wait til Chappy responds to this!
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 831
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Post by Chapabel » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:38 pm

SEG wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:14 pm
Alas, seeing how he is now calling us liars, we won't include him in any future discussions. His loss, not ours.
Hahaha. I loose nothing at all. If you don’t want to include me in discussioning the truth of Christianity, there’s no surprise there. I find your slobber-fest with your nonChristian girlfriend kinda sickening anyway. When you do want the truth, hit me up. Hahaha

Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Post by Claire » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:48 pm

Chapabel wrote:Hahaha. I loose nothing at all. If you don’t want to include me in discussioning the truth of Christianity, there’s no surprise there. I find your slobber-fest with your nonChristian girlfriend kinda sickening anyway. When you do want the truth, hit me up. Hahaha
I don't see how someone taking notice of a good point made by another is a "slobber-fest".
Last edited by Claire on Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Post by SEG » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:50 pm

[quote wrote:Chapabel post_id=4307 time=1549629516 user_id=57]
Hahaha. I loose nothing at all.
You "loose" your ability to converse in English, you dolt! How many times do I have to school you on this? It's "lose", as in you lose debates like this when you talk about loving imaginary beings more than your family.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Post by Claire » Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:01 pm

Chapabel wrote:Simply stated, God would not violate His own edict that nothing else be added to His word. Any such visions, revelations or hocus pocus is not from God. But everyone is entitled to be blind to this fact especially those who are not even a child of God.
Which Bible verse(s) state God's subject to that particular edict of His? And, if God's subject to it, in that the prohibitions against adding to scripture works the way you're saying it does, then how could we have a NT at all, if in the OT books we are warned against adding to His word? It would mean God violated His own edict, and that contradicts what you said: "God would not violate His own edict that nothing else be added to His word".
Last edited by Claire on Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 831
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Post by Chapabel » Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:23 pm

Sigh, I don't know why the question has been asked because the answer will not satisfy the blind or willfully ignorant, but what makes the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ the final word from God? To understand the principle of divine revelation we need to know who God has spoken to in order to give special revelation. This question is answered in Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

So who are the "us" spoken of in this passage? Well, every book of the NT was written by an Apostle of Jesus Christ or by one who was personally taught by an Apostle. Only the Apostles had the authority to speak on behalf of God. There were only a handful of original Apostles. When an apostle died he was not replaced because the requirement to be an Apostle was to have witnessed Jesus both before and after His resurrection: Acts 1:21-22 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

When John the Beloved died, the office of Apostle ended. And so too any new revelation from God. Therefore if any person who comes along claiming to have received a vision or revelation from Jesus, is a lying hack and not to be taken seriously.

Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Post by Claire » Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:09 am

Chapabel wrote:
Claire wrote:
Chapabel wrote:Simply stated, God would not violate His own edict that nothing else be added to His word. Any such visions, revelations or hocus pocus is not from God. But everyone is entitled to be blind to this fact especially those who are not even a child of God.
Which Bible verse(s) state God's subject to that particular edict of His? And, if God's subject to it, in that the prohibitions against adding to scripture works the way you're saying it does, then how could we have a NT at all, if in the OT books we are warned against adding to His word? It would mean God violated His own edict, and that contradicts what you said: "God would not violate His own edict that nothing else be added to His word".
Sigh, I don't know why the question has been asked because the answer will not satisfy the blind or willfully ignorant, but what makes the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ the final word from God? To understand the principle of divine revelation we need to know who God has spoken to in order to give special revelation. This question is answered in Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

So who are the "us" spoken of in this passage? Well, every book of the NT was written by an Apostle of Jesus Christ or by one who was personally taught by an Apostle. Only the Apostles had the authority to speak on behalf of God. There were only a handful of original Apostles. When an apostle died he was not replaced because the requirement to be an Apostle was to have witnessed Jesus both before and after His resurrection: Acts 1:21-22 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

When John the Beloved died, the office of Apostle ended. And so too any new revelation from God. Therefore if any person who comes along claiming to have received a vision or revelation from Jesus, is a lying hack and not to be taken seriously.
You said:
When an apostle died he was not replaced because the requirement to be an Apostle was to have witnessed Jesus both before and after His resurrection:
What was Matthias considered then? Or, did you mean to say they were not replaced, unless their successor was someone who witnessed Jesus before and after His resurrection?

As for Hebrews 1:1-2, it only points out that before Jesus God spoke to the prophets, instead of communicating through His Son, not that speaking on God's behalf, and receiving revelations/visions stopped with the twelve apostles, and their chosen students. That's you adding meaning to the verse, and distancing yourself from your original argument.

You referenced OT books Deut. 4:2, and Prov. 30:6, warnings against adding unto the word of God, and specifically said: "God would not violate His own edict that nothing else be added to His word". With the existence of the NT, it doesn't matter if revelations were being passed from God the Father to the prophets of old, or came from Jesus Himself to His apostles. Either way, Jesus would be adding to scripture in a way that you claim violates the Bible in multiple places.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 831
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Post by Chapabel » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:31 pm

As I said, the answer I provided, with Biblical support, did not satisfy the blind/willfully ignorant. And for the record, Matthias did not replace an apostle. Judas Iscariot was not an apostle because he never saw the risen Savior.

God did not violate His own command to not add to His word because He wasn’t finished speaking until the Revelation was given. Any new vision or revelations are not from God and are simply bunk. Even the Catholic Church rejects the fictional work of MV. I believe this discussion is over.

Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Why the Cleansing of the Temple wasn't historical

Post by Claire » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:06 pm

.
Last edited by Claire on Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply