I’m not sure he is, but don’t the values of those numbers total up to 69? It’s like a message, and I think it has something to do with Madonna. :rolleyes:
But debating the Kabbalah is for another thread.
What he is saying is that there is no point in you continuing in your endeavor unless you want to wear your fingers out typing fruitlessly. Dio may be a godless commie 
but he can hold his own, or better, with all comers in a game of Bible Bingo.
Dio you read Greek, right? How about Hebrew and Aramaic?
I studied Greek and Latin.
Unfortunately, I do not know Hebrew or Aramaic, although I fully intend to study Hebrew in the future.
dropzone, I don’t *have * an endeavor. Please read my previous comments.
widdley
Still, you got me beat.
See, widdleytinks? The greatest value in debating Dio, at least in Bible stuff, is what you learn while losing. This is not intended to scare you away, and we welcome you to the SDMB. I just wanted to warn you that there are some topics you should enter with the full realization that you may lose the debate. The key is to not specialize in topics. We have people come here wanting to talk about one thing, get involved in a debate with an expert in the subject, and go crying home to mama about the mean people at the SDMB. You are different from them: You have a sense of humor. Stick around, read more than you type, and you can have fun and learn something, too. I learn stuff from these bozos every day, and much of it from people I disagree with strongly.
(I forgot to note this) You’ll find that a lot. When it happens I go to bed while the others burn out their clutches getting nowhere.
dropzone, dropzone, pleasant dropzone. I’m not interested in anyone’s Bible Bingo score. I didn’t post on this thread to “win” or “lose” a debate. Again, please read my previous comments. The emphasis on scoring, it’s a male thing, right?
widdley
widdleytinks, you are the one who came into this thread citing perceived “alusions” to Jesus in the OT. You then said you saw no point in posting quotations from the Tanakh as “proof” and I was just saying don’t be shy. If you really think you’ve got some good stuff pony it up. This is supposed to be a debate forum, after all. If you don’t want to debate your points, why are you here?
Diogenes, please read my comments. I commented regarding the futility of posting line after line of scripture. What in my comments leads you to believe that I have “some good stuff” to “pony” up? I implied nothing of the kind, quite the contrary. My point is there *is * no point.
widdley
Okay, I’ve never been called “pleasant” before so you win all future debates as far as I’m concerned! 
Yes, I see your point and mixed you up with Priceguy, who really should know better by now. (Why yes, yes I am the only person who uses smilies in Great Debates.) As for “scoring,” in the town my wife works Duelling Bible Verses is a unisex sport. I, but never they, blame the Women’s Movement.
Upon rereading the thread, I se that I idavertently conflated one of spingears posts with those of widdleytinks.
My apologies, widdley. Spingear cited some OT verses and for some reason I thought it was you. I had the impression that you were playing at being a sort of coy apologist. I should have been more careful in discerning who was saying what.
dropzone, I didn’t enter this thread to debate anything. That was the point of my comments. Now, I’m in the way here. Get on with the game.
widdley
(now there are 2)
It seesm you got confused with two different posters in the same thread. You must be one of those people who just looks like a lot of other people.
I could be if only I cared to, Diogenes. Fortunately, I’m long past it. Adieu.
widdley
I retract the previous “Adieu”. Now, concerning your comments above. I’m tempted to say something really smart @ssed about that and your pin knocking talents. But I won’t. 
Attempting once more, to exit this thread.
widdley
No, sorry. These letters add up to 503.
It’s based on the OT, and was used as a proof of Christianity. So I don’t see why you think it’s OK to mock it and try exclude it from this thread just because it’s Kabbalistic.
Is it against the forum rules to accuse someone of whooshing, like trolling?
I read long ago about this Kabbalistic proof of Christianity that succeeded in converting Jews, and this thread reminded me of it. As I stated already, I’m not Christian, and it hasn’t convinced me, but I did think it rated serious mention in this thread. When I thought about it, though, it did seem uncanny that the first four letters in Genesis “coincidentally” are the initials of the Trinity. Since it’s on record as actually converting Jews, it deserves to be included in this thread.
I wasn’t mocking it because it’s kabbalistic, I was mocking it because it’s dumb. You can take a few letters and make up whatever significant anagram you want. I thought you must have been kidding.
No, but I didn’t “accuse” you anyway, I asked you. I really wasn’t sure.
I guess it does show how the Hebrew Bible can be twisted and manipulated to try to convert people but this Kabbalistic thing is not really an example of finding anything in the plain text. It depends quite a bit on the sheer gullibility of the marks who are targeted by it.
Huh? What did I do wrong?
It’s oversimplifying but not totally inaccurate to say that one reason Kabbalistic study was not encouraged to any but the most devout & studious Jews is that many who studied it either became Christians or sorcerers L
That said, Kabbalism does give C’nity a hand in that it shows that authentic monotheistic Judaism can accomidate a multi-dimensional aspect to Deity. I defy anyone to explain why viewing the Ten Sephiroth as aspects of One Deity is acceptable while regarding TriPersonal aspects of the One is not.
I fear I was mocking it as I see the Kabbalah on the same level as finding the shapes of lambs in clouds. People are pattern-finding creatures, whether a pattern really exists or not. I consider the Kabbalah no more a valid citation than the 19th century Christian Spiritualists.