[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
Sorry to get in on this so late. I’ve read through most of this and it ended up pretty much where I thought it would. I don’t know that I have that much to add but to mention a little question my son asked me last year @ age 12. “Dad, you know the sword that guarded the garden of Eden?” Me - “Yeah?” Son - “How did Adam and Eve know it was dangerous? I mean they never had seen a sword before, or anyone kill anyone else right? So how did they even know what it was or that it might hurt them?”
My reply? - “Damn.”
The problems with the bible as I see them are relatively simple. It is true that in the centuries to follow the beginning of Christianity there were numerous philosophical debates that attempted to resolve many of these readily apparent ‘holes’ therein, and have done passingly well. However why would God inspire things to be written and taken as absolute truth that in turn require SO much debate and resolution in order to be understood when Jesus own apostles were in many cases considered ‘unlettered and ordinary men’.
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian faith, fully embraced and defended it in my youth, and in the last 4 years have gradually given it up completely. I set out to fully prove once and for all that the bible was irrefutable fact and wound up on the other side of the debate. That is not to say that I am an Atheist or an Agnostic. I have NO problem believing in superior intelligence, mated to irresistible power, or that it had a guiding hand in ‘everything’. To me this is altogether possible, but I find the ideas such as that this superior intelligence thought the best way to distinguish his ‘chosen’ people was to have the males cut off there foreskins, is preposterous.
Ponderous lists and instructions for the sacrifice and rendering of animals, as well as bizarre social taboos and a completely inconsistent record of punishment further condemn the scripturee ‘in my opinion’.
In one instance God forgives Manasseh who burned his own children alive in ritual sacrifice to a foreign God, even convincing others to do the same, building places for them to do so. Then in another instance he punishes a group of impolite children who make fun of one of his prophets for the fact that he is bald, by having a she-bear come out of the wilderness and maul them all to death. Neither of these sentences would hold up in any court in the world today.
I am by no means suggesting anyone share these opinions, but to me it is unthinkable to relate the bible with absolute truth, given the outstanding inconsistencies in the basic ideas of God’s Justice, irrefutable Wisdom, and the idea of a person claiming to be the personification of love committing and sanctioning what almost all of his rational creation on this planet would consider hateful and abominable at best. [/quote]
Literal interpretations are problematic. I always recommend an unabated, uninhibited search for truth. Your issues are duly noted, but I think context and audience are huge factors. Who was this written for, what was the point of this piece, what is the message, etc.
Let’s take for instance the burnt offerings / animal sacrifices. These ancients were going to do that anyway, to some one or something. Early in the bible, it seems God spent a great deal of time on the first commandment.
Fine, you are going to do sacrifices, it better be to me. Rather than shooting lightening bolts out of his eyes, he took what they were doing and pushed it in his direction.
This stuff was written for some stubborn neanderthal boobs. They need info in ways they understand and force, they understood.
The existence of a thing disproves any claim (or at least one of a group of claims together) that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the thing is impossible.
Agree or disagree? [/quote]
Can you clarify what you are trying to say? I really don’t understand what you are saying. Then I can agree or disagree.[/quote]He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[/quote]
The fact of something existence means that it’s impossible for it not to exist? Is this what is being said?[/quote]
Yes. If a red ball exists, the claim “No one has ever made a red ball” (lets assume that claim means a red ball cannot exist) is untrue.
If a red ball exists, a series of claims, such as “Only X material can be used to make balls, and X material does not exist in red” (leading necessarily to the conclusion that a red ball cannot exist), then one or more of the claims is wrong.
So, the universe exists. Therefore, one of your claims, which taken together make the universe impossible, is wrong.
If the law of thermodynamics and the A theory of time combine to form a conclusion that the universe cannot exist, one or more of those claims is wrong. [/quote]
Which claim have I made, make the universe impossible to exist?
Secondly, cannot actually prove the universe exists, the limited epistemology of the human mind simply prohibit it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means you are limited by your own humanity. You cannot prove that anything physical isn’t illusory. You can thank DesCarte for that one…[/quote]
All the claims that lead you to the conclusion of a Prime Mover that must exist outside our universe.
If all stuff comes from other stuff, then the first stuff can’t exist. But it does (I think the DesCarte bit is a little hyperphilosophical for the conversation, lets assume the universe exists).
So, either one or more of your claims is incorrect (That stuff always needs other stuff to make it, or that time acts in the way we see it, etc), or a being which can do the impossible (God) must exist, totally outside our time and space and reality.
Given the two options (God vs our understanding of the universe being flawed), I go with the latter. Consider how much has been “known” by past cultures that has turned out to be totally untrue.
Hell, for a while there “Bee’s shouldnt be able to fly, but they do” was proof of God to some. It was eventually explained, proving that the problem wasn’t “and impossible thing is happening!” but “we didn’t understand it yet”.
[/quote]
You must have misunderstood what I said. I didn’t say God exists out side the universe, I said by necessity he must exist out side the causal chain. As far as location, I don’t consider it a physical thing with a physical location. But I do not confirm or deny either possibility.
Our understanding of the universe does not preclude that God cannot exist. Quite the contrary, actually. There is evidence of causality every where, the is no evidence of randomness what so ever. While there is a possibility of eternal matter and energy, there is no evidence of that either. Time is irrelevant to the discussion as removing time does not remove dependencies.
The link I provided you and forlife covers all this stuff. I would recommend it so we don’t repeat arguments already made. [/quote]
In a bit of a hurry, cant read the link. Time isn’t irrelevant as we’re talking about what happened in the past. if time doesnt exist, there is no past and everything is eternal.
Your claim is God must exist outside the causual chain as we understand it. My claim is we simply don’t understand the causual chain.[/quote]
There’s really not much to causation. Philosophy simply breaks things down to their essential core. What makes something what it is.
David Hume wrote extensively on causation, it frustrated the shit out of him, but he was a genius. He’s an atheist, I recommend him.
If you do get a chance to read it, you’ll pretty much know how I’ll respond to things.
Here’s the rub Trib… From your perspective any man acting of his own volition doing “good works” his actions will be found as filthy rags by God. Actually, I agree with that. But you will agree (I assume) that men do good works under the influence (grace) of God and that these works are attributable to God and thus not filthy rags. Now the difference we have is in how much the human person is involved in this. Certainly it isn’t nothing at all, but at the same time it is impossible for us to do anything truly good without God.
Here’s the thing then Trib, when you say our works are filthy rags what you are saying, translated from our end, is God’s works are filthy rags.
[/quote]
I agree that any man doing works on his own (which is when he is not in a state of grace) is filthy rags, I believe that one hundred percent. I, however, as you pointed out, do not believe that ALL works of ALL men are filthy rags, those of the righteous are not filthy rags. It would do good for protestants to take a look at the OT and read the quotes in context. The works of the righteous are worthy of merit because they are the will of God.[/quote]
To not attribute all good works to God is anti-scriptural, period.
Here’s the rub Trib… From your perspective any man acting of his own volition doing “good works” his actions will be found as filthy rags by God. Actually, I agree with that. But you will agree (I assume) that men do good works under the influence (grace) of God and that these works are attributable to God and thus not filthy rags. Now the difference we have is in how much the human person is involved in this. Certainly it isn’t nothing at all, but at the same time it is impossible for us to do anything truly good without God.
Here’s the thing then Trib, when you say our works are filthy rags what you are saying, translated from our end, is God’s works are filthy rags.
[/quote]You keep dangling yer toes in my water which I welcome BTW. Chris is behind a tree on the shore, but not daring to look and Pat is in a temper tantrum over the hill dying of thirst but refusing to even approach that living water. I’m at work. It’ll probably be tonight before I can answer.
Very very short holdover. ANY human effort, work or obedience whatsoever, offered to God as anything like a single particle’s contribution to one’s right standing with Him will get you a one way ticket to hell. All works offered in loving grateful submission to Him for having already saved us are precious in His site. Faith that does not work is no faith at all and works intended to recommend us to God are even worse.[/quote]
Temper tantrum? LOL! OK.
I’ll take that as an inability to answer the questions. You say we’re evil, I have called you out on it and you cannot answer. It’s pretty clear, back what you say up, or don’t say it.
First of all, I apologize for the long wait. School has kept me more than busy these last couple of days.
Anyway…
If I recall the last thing I was debating about was with Chris on the contradictory accounts of the life of Jesus, specifically when he was crucified according to Mark and John. To reiterate, John says that Jesus was crucified sometime after noon on the day before Passover/Sabbath - Friday (John 19:14-16/19:31). Mark says that he wasn’t crucified until the first day of Passover and was crucified at 9 am (Mark 14:12, 15:25).
Now, according to John, Jesus wasn’t actually crucified until 19:18. I believe you said something along the lines of the Passover actually began on Wednesday or Thursday and Jesus just wasn’t crucified until the next day. The problem with this is there are only 2 verses in between 16 and 18 and they are taken up with Jesus carrying his cross to Golgotha. So, unless you’re trying to say that Jesus carried that damn cross for 19 consectutive hours, this argument is bunk. Also, if what you say is true, then the conversation at Mark 14:12 couldn’t of happened as, according to you, Jesus had already been captured and most likely carrying his cross.
Mark and John where talking about two different days. There’s no way around this, Mark and John have contradictory accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. Your bible is bunk.[/quote]
You’re sure to win someone’s confidence with such humbleness.
When Did Jesus Celebrate the Last Supper?
ON THE SURFACE, the Synoptic Gospels appear to contradict the Gospel of John concerning the date of the Last Supper. All four Gospels agree that Jesus died on Good Friday a few hours before sundown and the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath. However, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus celebrating the Last Supper as a Passover meal prior to Good Friday (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:15), while John’s Gospel seems to indicate that the Passover was not celebrated by Jewish authorities until the evening of Good Friday itself (Jn 18:28; 19:14). How can Jesus have celebrated the Passover before his crucifixion (Synoptics) when the Passover did not begin until several hours after his death (John)?
Some deal with this problem by denying that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Others suggest that Passover did indeed fall on the evening of Holy Thursday, but that John manipulated the historical facts for theological reasons in order to present Jesus as the true paschal Lamb. Still others hold that Jesus celebrated an anticipatory Passover one day ahead of the official date. Unfortunately, none of these views is satisfactory. Two main solutions, however, have been proposed to reconcile the accounts in John and the Synoptics. Both rely on the findings of modern scholarship as well as ancient traditions of the Church.
The Calender Proposal Some maintain that Jesus, when he celebrated the Last Supper, followed an alternative Jewish calender in which Passover fell on Tuesday night instead of Friday night. Thus, the Synoptic Gospels correctly describe the Last Supper as a Passover meal, whereas John correctly notes that Jewish authorities did not celebrate the feast until the evening of Good Friday. Four considerations are said to favor this solution. (1) It is clear that Judaism was divided over the acceptance of a liturgical calender in the first century. Authorities in control of the Jerusalem Temple followed a solar calender in which annual festivals always fell on the same day of the week year after year. Passover, for instance, was always held on Tuesday night (the first hours of Wednesday) according to the solar calendar. Given this situation, it is conceivable that Jesus followed the Essene calendar instead of the Temple calendar when he celebrated his final Passover. (2) Archaeology suggest that the traditional site of the supper room (the Cenacle) lies within the Essene quarter of ancient Jerusalem. Thus, the probably location of the Last Supper on the southwest hill of the city is precisely where archeologists have uncovered the remains of an Essene settlement from the first century. If the identification holds, this would tighten the possible connection between Jesus, the last Supper, and the Essene solar calendar. (3) The hypothesis that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Tuesday night has an added dimension of historical plausibility: it allows more time for the extensive legal proceedings that transpired between his arrest and condemnation. Recall that Jesus was taken before Annas (Jn 18:13, 19-23), Caiaphas (Jn 18:24), the Sanhedrin (Lk 22:66-71), Herod (Lk 23:6-11, and Pilate (Jn 18:28-40). These trials may have occurred during a single nightk, but the events fit more comfortably within the span of several days. (4) A Syriac text from the third century explicitly states that Jesus celebrated the last Supper on Tuesday night (Didascalia Apostolorum 5, 12-18), and other ancient writers, such as bishop Victoriunus of Pettau (De Fabrica Mundi 3) and Saint Epiphanius (Panarion 51, 26), tsate that Jesus was taken into custody on Tuesday night. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI commented that this solution is worthy of consideration (“Homily for the Mass of the Lord’ Supper”, Holy Thursday, 5 April 2007).
The Paschal Proposal Another solution contends that John’s Gospel follows the same chronology as the Synoptics when its historical notations are considered more carefully. On this view, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Thursday night, along with the rest of Jerusalem, and the notion that John puts Passover on Friday night is simply a misunderstanding of the evangelist’s use of Passover terminology. Four considerations may be said to favor this hypothesis. (1) It is important to recognize that the word “Passover”, both in Hebrew (pesah) and in Greek (pascha), has a wider range of meaning than simply “Passover lamb” or “Passover meal”. It can also designate the entirety of “Passover week” (Lk 22:1), as well as “the peace offerings sacrificed and eaten during Passover week” (Deut 16:2-3; Mishnah, Pesahim 9, 5). In light of this latter usage, one could say that the Jewish authorities in John 18:28 probably fear that defilement will disqualify them from partaking, not of the Passover Seder (held the night before), but of the celebratory sacrifices eaten durin Passover week. Peace offerings, after all, could not be eaten in a state of ritual defilement (Lev 7:19-20). (2) The supper that Jesus attends in John 13:2 is the same as the Synoptic Last Supper, in which case it was a Passover meal. This is not stated explicitly, but John’s description of the meal highlights features that, taken together, are distinctive of a Passover banquet (e.g., the participants reclined, Jn 13:23; morsels were dipped, Jn 13:26; some thought Judas was sent with an offering for the poor, Jn 13:29; the meal took place at night, Jn 13:30). Thus, the comment that Jesus contemplate his hour “before the feast of the Passover” (Jn 13:1) puts this moment of reflection, not a full day before the paschal celebration began, but on the afternoon of Passover eve, only a short time before the start of the feast. (3) The RSV takes John 19:14 to mean that Jesus was sentenced to death on “the day of Preparation of the Passover”. This translation is not impossible, but neither is it preferable. The Greek term rendered “day of Preparation” is simply the common word for “Friday”, the day when Jews made preparations for the Sabbath (Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54). Since John himself appears to use the term primarily in relation to the Sabbath (See Jn 19:31, 42), it is likely that the expression in John 19:14 means “Friday of Passover week” and is not meant to identify the afternoon of Good Friday as Passover eve. (4) Christian theologians who have favored this solution included Saint John Chrysostom (Homilies on John 83) and Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae III, 46, 9). [/quote]
Hmm? I’ve said something un-humble in my post?
How lazy you are. You know, I have no problem with you copy/pasting your ENTIRE argument, but at the very least post your source. Actually, you should have just posted the link as now it seems like you’re trying to take credit for someone else’s words. Did you think I wouldn’t notice? I know your mannerisms at this point and I’m very good at deriving patterns. You cannot fool me in such a manner.
[/quote]
I suppose I am lazy for omitting the source, I typed the article up from a hard copy and thought I wrote the source down at the beginning. My apologies.
I guess you didn’t actually read the document. I am done here, if you aren’t open to looking at what I post then it’s would be a waste of time for me and an unnecessary effort and waste of space for T-Nation.
You make it sound like I picked up a random book, no I picked up the The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament. I have studied the book front to back, read all the articles and was using it to argue my point. I gave up trying to get you to address my points instead of reiterating the same comments over and over again. So, I just typed up the article out of the book.
I guess I would be a good monk-scribe. I suppose it has something to do with my spell check, too. But, let me have my pride in thinking I typed it perfectly the first time. And, yes it was referenced on the first page of The Gospel According to Saint John in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament of the RSV, Second Catholic Edition. You can check the book out if you wish. And if you look at your link, they got the article from the same book. Good research on your part. Look at the end of the link: heIgnatiusC-leNewTestament_split_068.html
[quote]
Though, I love how you refuse to address my argument because it’s apparently a non-sequitur, but you absolutely refuse to go into ANY detail whatsoever about exactly why my argument is unrelated to the article. Can you spell COPOUT, children? ;)[/quote]
No, not a cop out, I am just tired of making points and you not addressing them. Why would I keep trying to explain it when I just get the same reaction, that is insanity.
You want to know why you’re argument doesn’t work, because it is pure proof text. It takes in no account for Jewish Soliloquies, traditions, sects, customs, translation, &c. You just read the text and see inconsistencies that are explained when context is provided (which I did with the article) and when you read the context, you just say NO the text the text the text. The text is a Catholic document and tradition, the Catholic Church wrote, it would provide you benefit if you listened to the author of the Bible instead of your own interpretation.
“There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” - 2 Peter 3:16
Supposing you can understand scripture (or prove scripture wrong) on your own without a guide is laughable. Even a minister of the Queen of Ethiopia, a Jewish and educated man, needed a guide to understand Isaiah in Acts 8:31 by Philip.[/quote]
Seriously, there is no point to this, just a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter. Being pinpoint accurate about historical events is not the point, it’s what the events were and what they mean. It’s not a history book, math book science book, etc.
Just let yu gi oh! here stoke himself to his little hater web sites and don’t get caught up with folks who don’t know what the fuck they are talking about. It’s not your job to educate him and much education is needed and not wanted.
This is what I tried to PM you but since that shit no longer works, I had to just say it here.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Temper tantrum? LOL! OK.
I’ll take that as an inability to answer the questions. You say we’re evil, I have called you out on it and you cannot answer. It’s pretty clear, back what you say up, or don’t say it.[/quote]Strong Words from Cappednplannit (or however he spells that)
[quote]You can shine a flashlight in a blind man’s face all day long and he will not see it[/quote]I’ve had a 5 billion watt light in your face for months Pat. Scripture everywhere and you just keep saying “you cannot answer”. I love ya man, I actually do, but I am unequipped to do any more than I already have. The skin is burning off your nose from the light that you do not see.
First of all, I apologize for the long wait. School has kept me more than busy these last couple of days.
Anyway…
If I recall the last thing I was debating about was with Chris on the contradictory accounts of the life of Jesus, specifically when he was crucified according to Mark and John. To reiterate, John says that Jesus was crucified sometime after noon on the day before Passover/Sabbath - Friday (John 19:14-16/19:31). Mark says that he wasn’t crucified until the first day of Passover and was crucified at 9 am (Mark 14:12, 15:25).
Now, according to John, Jesus wasn’t actually crucified until 19:18. I believe you said something along the lines of the Passover actually began on Wednesday or Thursday and Jesus just wasn’t crucified until the next day. The problem with this is there are only 2 verses in between 16 and 18 and they are taken up with Jesus carrying his cross to Golgotha. So, unless you’re trying to say that Jesus carried that damn cross for 19 consectutive hours, this argument is bunk. Also, if what you say is true, then the conversation at Mark 14:12 couldn’t of happened as, according to you, Jesus had already been captured and most likely carrying his cross.
Mark and John where talking about two different days. There’s no way around this, Mark and John have contradictory accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. Your bible is bunk.[/quote]
You’re sure to win someone’s confidence with such humbleness.
When Did Jesus Celebrate the Last Supper?
ON THE SURFACE, the Synoptic Gospels appear to contradict the Gospel of John concerning the date of the Last Supper. All four Gospels agree that Jesus died on Good Friday a few hours before sundown and the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath. However, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus celebrating the Last Supper as a Passover meal prior to Good Friday (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:15), while John’s Gospel seems to indicate that the Passover was not celebrated by Jewish authorities until the evening of Good Friday itself (Jn 18:28; 19:14). How can Jesus have celebrated the Passover before his crucifixion (Synoptics) when the Passover did not begin until several hours after his death (John)?
Some deal with this problem by denying that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Others suggest that Passover did indeed fall on the evening of Holy Thursday, but that John manipulated the historical facts for theological reasons in order to present Jesus as the true paschal Lamb. Still others hold that Jesus celebrated an anticipatory Passover one day ahead of the official date. Unfortunately, none of these views is satisfactory. Two main solutions, however, have been proposed to reconcile the accounts in John and the Synoptics. Both rely on the findings of modern scholarship as well as ancient traditions of the Church.
The Calender Proposal Some maintain that Jesus, when he celebrated the Last Supper, followed an alternative Jewish calender in which Passover fell on Tuesday night instead of Friday night. Thus, the Synoptic Gospels correctly describe the Last Supper as a Passover meal, whereas John correctly notes that Jewish authorities did not celebrate the feast until the evening of Good Friday. Four considerations are said to favor this solution. (1) It is clear that Judaism was divided over the acceptance of a liturgical calender in the first century. Authorities in control of the Jerusalem Temple followed a solar calender in which annual festivals always fell on the same day of the week year after year. Passover, for instance, was always held on Tuesday night (the first hours of Wednesday) according to the solar calendar. Given this situation, it is conceivable that Jesus followed the Essene calendar instead of the Temple calendar when he celebrated his final Passover. (2) Archaeology suggest that the traditional site of the supper room (the Cenacle) lies within the Essene quarter of ancient Jerusalem. Thus, the probably location of the Last Supper on the southwest hill of the city is precisely where archeologists have uncovered the remains of an Essene settlement from the first century. If the identification holds, this would tighten the possible connection between Jesus, the last Supper, and the Essene solar calendar. (3) The hypothesis that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Tuesday night has an added dimension of historical plausibility: it allows more time for the extensive legal proceedings that transpired between his arrest and condemnation. Recall that Jesus was taken before Annas (Jn 18:13, 19-23), Caiaphas (Jn 18:24), the Sanhedrin (Lk 22:66-71), Herod (Lk 23:6-11, and Pilate (Jn 18:28-40). These trials may have occurred during a single nightk, but the events fit more comfortably within the span of several days. (4) A Syriac text from the third century explicitly states that Jesus celebrated the last Supper on Tuesday night (Didascalia Apostolorum 5, 12-18), and other ancient writers, such as bishop Victoriunus of Pettau (De Fabrica Mundi 3) and Saint Epiphanius (Panarion 51, 26), tsate that Jesus was taken into custody on Tuesday night. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI commented that this solution is worthy of consideration (“Homily for the Mass of the Lord’ Supper”, Holy Thursday, 5 April 2007).
The Paschal Proposal Another solution contends that John’s Gospel follows the same chronology as the Synoptics when its historical notations are considered more carefully. On this view, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Thursday night, along with the rest of Jerusalem, and the notion that John puts Passover on Friday night is simply a misunderstanding of the evangelist’s use of Passover terminology. Four considerations may be said to favor this hypothesis. (1) It is important to recognize that the word “Passover”, both in Hebrew (pesah) and in Greek (pascha), has a wider range of meaning than simply “Passover lamb” or “Passover meal”. It can also designate the entirety of “Passover week” (Lk 22:1), as well as “the peace offerings sacrificed and eaten during Passover week” (Deut 16:2-3; Mishnah, Pesahim 9, 5). In light of this latter usage, one could say that the Jewish authorities in John 18:28 probably fear that defilement will disqualify them from partaking, not of the Passover Seder (held the night before), but of the celebratory sacrifices eaten durin Passover week. Peace offerings, after all, could not be eaten in a state of ritual defilement (Lev 7:19-20). (2) The supper that Jesus attends in John 13:2 is the same as the Synoptic Last Supper, in which case it was a Passover meal. This is not stated explicitly, but John’s description of the meal highlights features that, taken together, are distinctive of a Passover banquet (e.g., the participants reclined, Jn 13:23; morsels were dipped, Jn 13:26; some thought Judas was sent with an offering for the poor, Jn 13:29; the meal took place at night, Jn 13:30). Thus, the comment that Jesus contemplate his hour “before the feast of the Passover” (Jn 13:1) puts this moment of reflection, not a full day before the paschal celebration began, but on the afternoon of Passover eve, only a short time before the start of the feast. (3) The RSV takes John 19:14 to mean that Jesus was sentenced to death on “the day of Preparation of the Passover”. This translation is not impossible, but neither is it preferable. The Greek term rendered “day of Preparation” is simply the common word for “Friday”, the day when Jews made preparations for the Sabbath (Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54). Since John himself appears to use the term primarily in relation to the Sabbath (See Jn 19:31, 42), it is likely that the expression in John 19:14 means “Friday of Passover week” and is not meant to identify the afternoon of Good Friday as Passover eve. (4) Christian theologians who have favored this solution included Saint John Chrysostom (Homilies on John 83) and Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae III, 46, 9). [/quote]
Hmm? I’ve said something un-humble in my post?
How lazy you are. You know, I have no problem with you copy/pasting your ENTIRE argument, but at the very least post your source. Actually, you should have just posted the link as now it seems like you’re trying to take credit for someone else’s words. Did you think I wouldn’t notice? I know your mannerisms at this point and I’m very good at deriving patterns. You cannot fool me in such a manner.
[/quote]
I suppose I am lazy for omitting the source, I typed the article up from a hard copy and thought I wrote the source down at the beginning. My apologies.
I guess you didn’t actually read the document. I am done here, if you aren’t open to looking at what I post then it’s would be a waste of time for me and an unnecessary effort and waste of space for T-Nation.
You make it sound like I picked up a random book, no I picked up the The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament. I have studied the book front to back, read all the articles and was using it to argue my point. I gave up trying to get you to address my points instead of reiterating the same comments over and over again. So, I just typed up the article out of the book.
I guess I would be a good monk-scribe. I suppose it has something to do with my spell check, too. But, let me have my pride in thinking I typed it perfectly the first time. And, yes it was referenced on the first page of The Gospel According to Saint John in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament of the RSV, Second Catholic Edition. You can check the book out if you wish. And if you look at your link, they got the article from the same book. Good research on your part. Look at the end of the link: heIgnatiusC-leNewTestament_split_068.html
[quote]
Though, I love how you refuse to address my argument because it’s apparently a non-sequitur, but you absolutely refuse to go into ANY detail whatsoever about exactly why my argument is unrelated to the article. Can you spell COPOUT, children? ;)[/quote]
No, not a cop out, I am just tired of making points and you not addressing them. Why would I keep trying to explain it when I just get the same reaction, that is insanity.
You want to know why you’re argument doesn’t work, because it is pure proof text. It takes in no account for Jewish Soliloquies, traditions, sects, customs, translation, &c. You just read the text and see inconsistencies that are explained when context is provided (which I did with the article) and when you read the context, you just say NO the text the text the text. The text is a Catholic document and tradition, the Catholic Church wrote, it would provide you benefit if you listened to the author of the Bible instead of your own interpretation.
“There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” - 2 Peter 3:16
Supposing you can understand scripture (or prove scripture wrong) on your own without a guide is laughable. Even a minister of the Queen of Ethiopia, a Jewish and educated man, needed a guide to understand Isaiah in Acts 8:31 by Philip.[/quote]
Exactly what “points” of yours am I failing to address? I’ve directly retorted every single damn thing you’ve said, you’re merely projecting.
Though ,I should of seem this coming. As soon as things start to look rough for you, you flip the gameboard like an arrogant child. the bible IS text. I don’t know what else to say, it IIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSS text. It’s a book and a book is a collection of text. I’ve gone into extensive detail about mannerisms, taditions, customs. And, translations? Are you kidding me? I’ve read the King James, New Century, American Standard, Common/Contemporary English AND the GOD’S WORD translations. What, do I need to read every single translation before anything I say can matter? Is that what you’re saying?
This brings up yet another problem with your dogma. Why would GOD ALMIGHTY in his infinite foreknowledge totally fail to account for his bible’s translatability? Surely GOD of all beings would at least have the common sense to guide biblical translators into getting it correct. Why would GOD allow his words to be so easily tampered with?
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Though ,I should of seem this coming. As soon as things start to look rough for you, you flip the gameboard like an arrogant child. the bible IS text. I don’t know what else to say, it IIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSS text. It’s a book and a book is a collection of text. I’ve gone into extensive detail about mannerisms, taditions, customs. And, translations? Are you kidding me? I’ve read the King James, New Century, American Standard, Common/Contemporary English AND the GOD’S WORD translations. What, do I need to read every single translation before anything I say can matter? Is that what you’re saying?[/quote]
You haven’t addressed tradition, customers, or anything. And, do you understand the original Greek and Hebrew?
[quote]
This brings up yet another problem with your dogma. Why would GOD ALMIGHTY in his infinite foreknowledge totally fail to account for his bible’s translatability? Surely GOD of all beings would at least have the common sense to guide biblical translators into getting it correct. Why would GOD allow his words to be so easily tampered with? [/quote]
Because Jesus is a Jew, and he did not intend for the Bible to be used as a self teaching tool. All over the Bible it says for the need of listening to the teachers, of the Church, of the Apostles, of the oral traditions, of the doctrine spoken. Bible says nay on private interpretations and unguided reading to figure out doctrine and dogmas. I can read the Bible, that doesn’t mean that I’ll be able to pull from it doctrinal truths. That goes against the Bible itself. I need the Church to teach and guide me since God gave the Church that power alone.
First of all, I apologize for the long wait. School has kept me more than busy these last couple of days.
Anyway…
If I recall the last thing I was debating about was with Chris on the contradictory accounts of the life of Jesus, specifically when he was crucified according to Mark and John. To reiterate, John says that Jesus was crucified sometime after noon on the day before Passover/Sabbath - Friday (John 19:14-16/19:31). Mark says that he wasn’t crucified until the first day of Passover and was crucified at 9 am (Mark 14:12, 15:25).
Now, according to John, Jesus wasn’t actually crucified until 19:18. I believe you said something along the lines of the Passover actually began on Wednesday or Thursday and Jesus just wasn’t crucified until the next day. The problem with this is there are only 2 verses in between 16 and 18 and they are taken up with Jesus carrying his cross to Golgotha. So, unless you’re trying to say that Jesus carried that damn cross for 19 consectutive hours, this argument is bunk. Also, if what you say is true, then the conversation at Mark 14:12 couldn’t of happened as, according to you, Jesus had already been captured and most likely carrying his cross.
Mark and John where talking about two different days. There’s no way around this, Mark and John have contradictory accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. Your bible is bunk.[/quote]
You’re sure to win someone’s confidence with such humbleness.
When Did Jesus Celebrate the Last Supper?
ON THE SURFACE, the Synoptic Gospels appear to contradict the Gospel of John concerning the date of the Last Supper. All four Gospels agree that Jesus died on Good Friday a few hours before sundown and the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath. However, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus celebrating the Last Supper as a Passover meal prior to Good Friday (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:15), while John’s Gospel seems to indicate that the Passover was not celebrated by Jewish authorities until the evening of Good Friday itself (Jn 18:28; 19:14). How can Jesus have celebrated the Passover before his crucifixion (Synoptics) when the Passover did not begin until several hours after his death (John)?
Some deal with this problem by denying that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Others suggest that Passover did indeed fall on the evening of Holy Thursday, but that John manipulated the historical facts for theological reasons in order to present Jesus as the true paschal Lamb. Still others hold that Jesus celebrated an anticipatory Passover one day ahead of the official date. Unfortunately, none of these views is satisfactory. Two main solutions, however, have been proposed to reconcile the accounts in John and the Synoptics. Both rely on the findings of modern scholarship as well as ancient traditions of the Church.
The Calender Proposal Some maintain that Jesus, when he celebrated the Last Supper, followed an alternative Jewish calender in which Passover fell on Tuesday night instead of Friday night. Thus, the Synoptic Gospels correctly describe the Last Supper as a Passover meal, whereas John correctly notes that Jewish authorities did not celebrate the feast until the evening of Good Friday. Four considerations are said to favor this solution. (1) It is clear that Judaism was divided over the acceptance of a liturgical calender in the first century. Authorities in control of the Jerusalem Temple followed a solar calender in which annual festivals always fell on the same day of the week year after year. Passover, for instance, was always held on Tuesday night (the first hours of Wednesday) according to the solar calendar. Given this situation, it is conceivable that Jesus followed the Essene calendar instead of the Temple calendar when he celebrated his final Passover. (2) Archaeology suggest that the traditional site of the supper room (the Cenacle) lies within the Essene quarter of ancient Jerusalem. Thus, the probably location of the Last Supper on the southwest hill of the city is precisely where archeologists have uncovered the remains of an Essene settlement from the first century. If the identification holds, this would tighten the possible connection between Jesus, the last Supper, and the Essene solar calendar. (3) The hypothesis that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Tuesday night has an added dimension of historical plausibility: it allows more time for the extensive legal proceedings that transpired between his arrest and condemnation. Recall that Jesus was taken before Annas (Jn 18:13, 19-23), Caiaphas (Jn 18:24), the Sanhedrin (Lk 22:66-71), Herod (Lk 23:6-11, and Pilate (Jn 18:28-40). These trials may have occurred during a single nightk, but the events fit more comfortably within the span of several days. (4) A Syriac text from the third century explicitly states that Jesus celebrated the last Supper on Tuesday night (Didascalia Apostolorum 5, 12-18), and other ancient writers, such as bishop Victoriunus of Pettau (De Fabrica Mundi 3) and Saint Epiphanius (Panarion 51, 26), tsate that Jesus was taken into custody on Tuesday night. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI commented that this solution is worthy of consideration (“Homily for the Mass of the Lord’ Supper”, Holy Thursday, 5 April 2007).
The Paschal Proposal Another solution contends that John’s Gospel follows the same chronology as the Synoptics when its historical notations are considered more carefully. On this view, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Thursday night, along with the rest of Jerusalem, and the notion that John puts Passover on Friday night is simply a misunderstanding of the evangelist’s use of Passover terminology. Four considerations may be said to favor this hypothesis. (1) It is important to recognize that the word “Passover”, both in Hebrew (pesah) and in Greek (pascha), has a wider range of meaning than simply “Passover lamb” or “Passover meal”. It can also designate the entirety of “Passover week” (Lk 22:1), as well as “the peace offerings sacrificed and eaten during Passover week” (Deut 16:2-3; Mishnah, Pesahim 9, 5). In light of this latter usage, one could say that the Jewish authorities in John 18:28 probably fear that defilement will disqualify them from partaking, not of the Passover Seder (held the night before), but of the celebratory sacrifices eaten durin Passover week. Peace offerings, after all, could not be eaten in a state of ritual defilement (Lev 7:19-20). (2) The supper that Jesus attends in John 13:2 is the same as the Synoptic Last Supper, in which case it was a Passover meal. This is not stated explicitly, but John’s description of the meal highlights features that, taken together, are distinctive of a Passover banquet (e.g., the participants reclined, Jn 13:23; morsels were dipped, Jn 13:26; some thought Judas was sent with an offering for the poor, Jn 13:29; the meal took place at night, Jn 13:30). Thus, the comment that Jesus contemplate his hour “before the feast of the Passover” (Jn 13:1) puts this moment of reflection, not a full day before the paschal celebration began, but on the afternoon of Passover eve, only a short time before the start of the feast. (3) The RSV takes John 19:14 to mean that Jesus was sentenced to death on “the day of Preparation of the Passover”. This translation is not impossible, but neither is it preferable. The Greek term rendered “day of Preparation” is simply the common word for “Friday”, the day when Jews made preparations for the Sabbath (Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54). Since John himself appears to use the term primarily in relation to the Sabbath (See Jn 19:31, 42), it is likely that the expression in John 19:14 means “Friday of Passover week” and is not meant to identify the afternoon of Good Friday as Passover eve. (4) Christian theologians who have favored this solution included Saint John Chrysostom (Homilies on John 83) and Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae III, 46, 9). [/quote]
Hmm? I’ve said something un-humble in my post?
How lazy you are. You know, I have no problem with you copy/pasting your ENTIRE argument, but at the very least post your source. Actually, you should have just posted the link as now it seems like you’re trying to take credit for someone else’s words. Did you think I wouldn’t notice? I know your mannerisms at this point and I’m very good at deriving patterns. You cannot fool me in such a manner.
[/quote]
I suppose I am lazy for omitting the source, I typed the article up from a hard copy and thought I wrote the source down at the beginning. My apologies.
I guess you didn’t actually read the document. I am done here, if you aren’t open to looking at what I post then it’s would be a waste of time for me and an unnecessary effort and waste of space for T-Nation.
You make it sound like I picked up a random book, no I picked up the The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament. I have studied the book front to back, read all the articles and was using it to argue my point. I gave up trying to get you to address my points instead of reiterating the same comments over and over again. So, I just typed up the article out of the book.
I guess I would be a good monk-scribe. I suppose it has something to do with my spell check, too. But, let me have my pride in thinking I typed it perfectly the first time. And, yes it was referenced on the first page of The Gospel According to Saint John in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament of the RSV, Second Catholic Edition. You can check the book out if you wish. And if you look at your link, they got the article from the same book. Good research on your part. Look at the end of the link: heIgnatiusC-leNewTestament_split_068.html
[quote]
Though, I love how you refuse to address my argument because it’s apparently a non-sequitur, but you absolutely refuse to go into ANY detail whatsoever about exactly why my argument is unrelated to the article. Can you spell COPOUT, children? ;)[/quote]
No, not a cop out, I am just tired of making points and you not addressing them. Why would I keep trying to explain it when I just get the same reaction, that is insanity.
You want to know why you’re argument doesn’t work, because it is pure proof text. It takes in no account for Jewish Soliloquies, traditions, sects, customs, translation, &c. You just read the text and see inconsistencies that are explained when context is provided (which I did with the article) and when you read the context, you just say NO the text the text the text. The text is a Catholic document and tradition, the Catholic Church wrote, it would provide you benefit if you listened to the author of the Bible instead of your own interpretation.
“There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” - 2 Peter 3:16
Supposing you can understand scripture (or prove scripture wrong) on your own without a guide is laughable. Even a minister of the Queen of Ethiopia, a Jewish and educated man, needed a guide to understand Isaiah in Acts 8:31 by Philip.[/quote]
Seriously, there is no point to this, just a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter. Being pinpoint accurate about historical events is not the point, it’s what the events were and what they mean. It’s not a history book, math book science book, etc.
Just let yu gi oh! here stoke himself to his little hater web sites and don’t get caught up with folks who don’t know what the fuck they are talking about. It’s not your job to educate him and much education is needed and not wanted.
This is what I tried to PM you but since that shit no longer works, I had to just say it here.[/quote]
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Though ,I should of seem this coming. As soon as things start to look rough for you, you flip the gameboard like an arrogant child. the bible IS text. I don’t know what else to say, it IIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSS text. It’s a book and a book is a collection of text. I’ve gone into extensive detail about mannerisms, taditions, customs. And, translations? Are you kidding me? I’ve read the King James, New Century, American Standard, Common/Contemporary English AND the GOD’S WORD translations. What, do I need to read every single translation before anything I say can matter? Is that what you’re saying?[/quote]
You haven’t addressed tradition, customers, or anything. And, do you understand the original Greek and Hebrew?
[quote]
This brings up yet another problem with your dogma. Why would GOD ALMIGHTY in his infinite foreknowledge totally fail to account for his bible’s translatability? Surely GOD of all beings would at least have the common sense to guide biblical translators into getting it correct. Why would GOD allow his words to be so easily tampered with? [/quote]
Because Jesus is a Jew, and he did not intend for the Bible to be used as a self teaching tool. All over the Bible it says for the need of listening to the teachers, of the Church, of the Apostles, of the oral traditions, of the doctrine spoken. Bible says nay on private interpretations and unguided reading to figure out doctrine and dogmas. I can read the Bible, that doesn’t mean that I’ll be able to pull from it doctrinal truths. That goes against the Bible itself. I need the Church to teach and guide me since God gave the Church that power alone.[/quote]
Do YOU understand the original Greek and Hebrew? I doubt it, but it doesn’t matter much either way because the given translations by those who speak these languages still show these contradictions. Unless you’re trying to say that “three” translates to “six” and “before” translates to “during/after”, the contradiction stands. There are Hebrew and Greek atheists mined you, if the bible if flawless in these languages then how do you account for these Greek and Hebrew atheist who base their atheism on the contradictions within a supposed perfect book?
Do you realize that Muslims make the same argument? All the flaws only exist because of poor translation (despite the Muslim-speaking atheists who show that the problem exists regardless of language). So are they correct? Is their Quran flawless aswell, or is only Catholicism to be granted this benefit?
How convenient that only the group with everything to gain from having your obedience can decipher the sea of flaws in your flawless bible and the rest of us are blinding by logic. I hear that the Quran can only be properly understood through their church, does that mean Muslims are correct aswell?
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Temper tantrum? LOL! OK.
I’ll take that as an inability to answer the questions. You say we’re evil, I have called you out on it and you cannot answer. It’s pretty clear, back what you say up, or don’t say it.[/quote]Strong Words from Cappednplannit (or however he spells that)
Maybe you should stop worrying about me and start worrying about yourself. Your arguments are weak and that’s a huge problem if you want convince me of anything.
You call us evil and the only support I have ever heard you give is that the Vatican was partially constructed by errant funds from a corrupt German bishop 500 years ago. If that’s all you got you need to check yourself. If you got more, I’d like to hear it. Rather than baselessly accusing us of being the tool of the devil.
I ask you to prove your point and you cannot, this is your 5 billion watt light bulb? Really? That garbage you put forth as evidence is all you got? And I am just supposed to give up all the things I have worked for deny truth and follow your apostasy? I didn’t realize your faith permits you to smoke crack.
Quite frankly, Captain Planet makes better arguments than you. An atheist can make better arguments for his position than you can for yours. This tells me you don’t know why you believe what you believe, but damn it it’s right.
You made a case, I ask for you to back it up and you can’t. That’s a shame, really it is. I can back up everything I put forth and if I cannot I’ll admit it.
You say we’re evil, but you cannot say why. You say we’re a tool of the devil, but you have no proof. You claim to follow the bible literally, but you don’t. You only follow the parts you like literally. I make no such claim.
But you follow predestination, so spreading the word is useless, talking me out of my faith is useless. Your 5 billion watt light bulb burnt out and you don’t even realize it.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
How do you know you don’t agree with the Bible unless you read it in its entirety? What would your liberal professors say if you decided to critique a book that you’ve never read?
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
How do you know you don’t agree with the Bible unless you read it in its entirety? What would your liberal professors say if you decided to critique a book that you’ve never read?
Very poor logic my friend, very poor.
[/quote]
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
How do you know you don’t agree with the Bible unless you read it in its entirety? What would your liberal professors say if you decided to critique a book that you’ve never read?
Very poor logic my friend, very poor.
[/quote]
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
What didn’t you like about the book of James? Come on that’s a great book.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
No, because you don’t know what your talking about.
