A Very Convenient Crucifixion.

Author: Stephen ,

Posts

Total: 64
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,099
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
It is believed by Muslims and others that Jesus didn't die on the cross. It has also been said that Jesus was substituted by Simon of Cyrene  who seemed to have appeared out of nowhere and just happens to be "passing by"  after a walk in the countryside;
Mark 15:21
A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.
It is only assumed that it was the Romans who pressed poor old Simon into carrying the burden of he Christ yet Jesus strangely had this to say about baring ones own cross.

Luke 14:27
Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be my disciple.

Anyway, the crucifixion; was it staged in order for him to "rise from the dead"?

It all seems a dam risky business if this was indeed the case, but not as far fetched as it may seem. 

We have to start with the crucifixion party arriving at "Golgotha. Here Jesus is offered his first drink::

"And when they had come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say, Place of a Skull, they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink." Matthew 27:33-34 KJV.
 
This seems a curious drink to offer a man on the verge of death after an extremely prolonged "scourging". Surly water would have been the first and obvious option and who offered it to him isn't made clear either. But we have to keep in mind that by all accounts it was the Romans who had sent Jesus to his death, so why would they care to offer him anything at all. 

Jesus then is hosted into position on the cross. There is then some mocking and challenges to save himself but Jesus is still alive and talking, giving instructions to one person to look after his mother whilst hanging there. But of all the things one would have expected a dying son of god to say one couldn't have ever expected to hear  this ;!


Matthew 27: 46   Eli, Eli,..... My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? !!!!
Yes, astonishingly here we have the son of god himself, doubting own his father, and his own god. It is as if he didn't have a clue as to what was happening yet he clearly spoke these words of doubt. Why? Hadn't he read all the script? Hadn't he just promised two robbers that they would "TRUELY" be with him in paradise?Luke 23:43 NIV

We then get to :

47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.

John 19   states that:
 
28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar [ and hyssop], he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

We are to assume that to "give up the ghost"  means dead?   And before we go further lets look at  Hyssop.

What are the medical uses of hyssop? As a medicinal herb, hyssop has soothing, expectorant, and cough suppressant properties. The plant also includes the chemicals Thujone and Phenol, which give it antiseptic properties. Its high concentrations of Thujone and chemicals that stimulate the central nervous system can provoke epileptic reactions when taken in high-enough doses.

Van Wyk, Ben-Erik; Wink, Michael (2004). Medicinal Plants of the World (1 ed.). Timber Press, Incorporated. p 177.


We can only assume that this sponge soaked with the sleep (if not stupor) inducing narcotic drug Hyssop and vinegar was administered on a pole by one of those said to be standing at the foot of the cross. The soldiers it is said were too busy - “casting lots and gambling of the royal robes - as it is written”- to be interested.

Then this happened;

John 19:32-33.KJV

“Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs”.

So Jesus was believed by these soldiers to be dead and  just for good measure ;

John 19;34 
34 one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
Does a corpse bleed?  Whatever happened? His “death” came about unexpectedly quick even to the wide eyed amazement of Pontius Pilate;

Mark15:44.KJV

“ And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead”.
And this is where this whole saga becomes even more suspicious. 


Mathew 27:57-61.KJV

Out of nowhere; 

“ When the evening was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:  He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.  And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre”. 
Joseph of Aremathea is not mentioned at all to us before the crucifixion. Pilate simply hands over the supposed dead Jesus to Joseph  Arimathaea without a single question. It is as if he knew him already. Pilate didn't ask what are you to this man? Are you family, Is he related to you, or how do you know him? Why hadn't any of Jesus' brothers claimed their dead relative. Or anyone of the Mary's who "gave to him of their substance"?  Or the "risen Lazarus" who Jesus "loved" or his own mother.!!!?

We only know that  Joseph  Arimathaea was a  rich member of the council of the Sanhedrin (judges) and a "secret disciple " of Jesus who "feared the Jews may wanted to kill him", and ..... who just happened to own the last know resting place of Jesus. Well, Well, Well.


So here we have a member of the council of Judges (Sanhedrin) who is rich and owns his own plot and his own hewn out tomb that appears to be enclosed in private grounds prepared and ready to accept a corpse, and not just any corpse, but the supposedly dead body of king Jesus who was condemned by the council of judges that Joseph of Aramethaea sat on and had sent before Pontius Pilate for sentencing. all very convenient to the inquiring mind, one would think. 

There is also yet another very cautious character that it seems is afraid to even to be seen with Jesus and only came to him under the cover of darkness;
John 3:2-3
“There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. The same came to Jesus by night.


And John’s gospel also tells us that he attended the burial the evening before;

John19:39.
“And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight”
And notice what the glittery night owl Nicodemus the Pharisee brought with him.  These were not simple cheap burial perfumes. Both have medicinal use especially myrrh that has properties that stops bleeding and neither of these drugs are known to have an embalming role of dead bodies. Both Luke and Mark touch on this matter by telling us that Mary  Magdalene and Mary "Jesus' mother" brought spices and ointments with them to the tomb.

Let us just rewind some. Back to Joseph of Arimathaea and his request for the body of Jesus..

The original Greek text shows an important point being made.  The word "body" is  soma. In Greek this would denote a living body.

When Pilate agrees that Joseph can take the body down from the cross the word he uses for body" is ptoma this means a  corpse, a dead body.  In other words, the Greek text of Mark's gospel is making it clear that while Joseph asked for the living (soma) body of Jesus, Pilate grants him what he believes to be the corpse, ptoma.


 




Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Stephen
When God became death, and rose again from the dead, the fulfillment of the scripture "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there." Is revealed.

In becoming becoming death and showing that it had no hold over Him, Christ demonstrates that though evil men will work tirelessly to stamp out The Truth and anything that might lead people to it, in the end, you can't kill The Truth. It will rise again in the flesh, and that is why the gates of hell will truly never overcome The Church. Christ has already won.

So we sing the hymn "Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life."


Something you will never grasp the way you interpret scripture without The Holy Spirit is the mystagogy of our faith. You grope around in the dark in vain. The more your effort is concentrated in this way, the more time you will waste fruitlessly while sliding deeper and deeper into the depths of delusion.

It would be much better for you in every way if you humbled yourself and accepted guidance from the Apostolic Church.







Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,099
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
From post 1 above:
Let us just rewind some. Back to Joseph of Arimathaea and his request for the body of Jesus..

The original Greek text shows an important point being made.  The word "body" is  soma. In Greek this would denote a living body.

When Pilate agrees that Joseph can take the body down from the cross the word he uses for body" is ptoma this means a  corpse, a dead body.  In other words, the Greek text of Mark's gospel is making it clear that while Joseph asked for the living (soma) body of Jesus, Pilate grants him what he believes to be the corpse, ptoma.

It has to be recognized that if the writer of Marks ( Greek version) gospel wished to hide that fact quoted above, it would have been very easy for him to simply use one word for both statements that is, to have BOTH Pilate AND Joseph speaking of the ptoma - the corpse.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,099
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
 The Quran denies Jesus is the son of God in several verses, including one (Q.5:116) quoting Jesus as denying he is the son of God.

According to mainstream Islamic interpretations of the Quran, he was neither crucified nor raised from the dead, but rather was saved by God.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Stephen
The Koran not only demonstrates an ignorance of Christian theology on several occasions, but it contradicts the teachings of the apostles and the church fathers.

Why should I believe Mohammed over the apostles themselves? I shouldn't. That's what I think.







disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Mopac
Why should I believe Mohammed over the apostles themselves?
What teachings of the apostles do you have?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @disgusted
The holy and righteous all laudable Apostle Saint John the theologian is a pretty good example.

And no one frustrates the so called gnostics and believers in Mohammed than good ol' John.


disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Mopac
Where did you get these writings? What is the provenance of them?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @disgusted
The Church wrote them.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Mopac
So it wasn't this mythical John then. You have no writings by your Jesus or the Apostles so stop lying.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @disgusted
The writings of John the theologian ARE the writings of the church.

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Mopac
The writings of John the theologian ARE the writings of the church.


But not an apostle like you claimed. Your lies just don't work.
Without the bible you would have a completely different god to worship, because you need a god to worship. Without the bible your god does not exist.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @disgusted
St. John the theologian was not just an apostle, but was even entrusted with taking care of Jesus' mother Mary.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Mopac
Where are his writings and what is the provenance of them? Again.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,099
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
--> @Mopac


The thread is not concerned with who is a fake god, church or who wrote what. The thread is concerned with the possibility of
a fake crucifixion.

Mopac is just loving the fact that this thread is being diverted with pointless argument. It saves him having to face and discuss the possibility that Jesus didn't "die" at all, but was only rendered unconscious by the  different chemicals that he  inhaled and drank , only to be  resuscitated and  revived;   and not resurrected from the dead, later. Did the ancients even have a word for unconsciousness?  Were they confusing resuscitation with resurrection? Did these ancients know the difference between resuscitation and resurrection, or did both these words  mean the same thing?


St. John the theologian was not just an apostle, but was even entrusted with taking care of Jesus' mother Mary.

The identity of the disciple allocated to the after care for Jesus' mother is never ever revealed. So you are wrong on that score and so is the not very observant bible bashing teacher who taught you this.   But I will take an educated stab and say that it was the once believed to be "dead -  now risen - Lazarus" who Jesus was talking to from the cross and giving instructions to.

And my reason for this comes from the scriptures.

Please read carefully>>>>When Lazarus is first reported to be only  "sick" , these are the words used by the messenger:

John 11 King James Version (KJV)11 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.


Now read >>>>John 19:26-27 King James Version (KJV)26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

So I am guessing he was instructing the once supposedly "dead" Lazarus. One has to wonder yet again, why this duty of after care was allocated to "dead" Lazarus, when Jesus had quite a large family of brothers and sisters. The Gospel of Mark (6:3) and the Gospel of Matthew (13:55-56) mention James, Joseph/Joses, Judas/Jude and Simon as brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus.One also has to wonder why the son of god Jesus couldn't look after his own mother once he came back from the "dead". I mean, he was only gone three days wasn't he?


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,910
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @Stephen
Given that the Biblical tales are at best a mythology.
Might suggest that someone was perhaps rightly or wrongly, nailed up by the Romans.
Though the truth of events has long since been both fancified and lost in translation.

And what happened to Old Joe?
He doesn't get much of a mention, considering all that he supposedly had to put up with.
Typical.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,099
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
--> @zedvictor4
Given that the Biblical tales are at best a mythology.
Might suggest that someone was perhaps rightly or wrongly, nailed up by the Romans.

Jesus may well have been nailed up. Its weather he survived and was it all contrived that I am asking



And what happened to Old Joe?
He doesn't get much of a mention, considering all that he supposedly had to put up with.
Typical.

Joseph of Arimathaea I assume?  Yes a shady character indeed as was that other "secrete disciple" Nicodemus. They both come and go in a flash don't they. As if the never even existed .

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Stephen
I believe my rejection of Mohammed's testimony which was dictated some 600 years later is totally justified given that the apostles believed otherwise.

I believe that places me thoroughly in the category of being on topic.






Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,099
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

I believe that places me thoroughly in the category of being on topic.
As you know, the thread is not about Muhammad. 


NO.  The crux of the thread - that being the decisive or most important point at issue-  is the about the very real possibility of a faked and staged Crucifixion played out by Jesus, and his two secret disciples.

  And you have no comment (ignored) on this concerning your obvious lies concerning Jesus' mothers' after care.

St. John the theologian was not just an apostle, but was even entrusted with taking care of Jesus' mother Mary.

The identity of the disciple allocated to the after care for Jesus' mother is never ever revealed. So you are wrong on that score and so is the not very observant bible bashing teacher who taught you this.   But I will take an educated stab and say that it was the once believed to be "dead -  now risen - Lazarus" who Jesus was talking to from the cross and giving instructions to.

And my reason for this comes from the scriptures.

Please read carefully>>>>When Lazarus is first reported to be only  "sick" , these are the words used by the messenger:

John 11 King James Version (KJV)11 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.


Now read >>>>John 19:26-27 King James Version (KJV)26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

So I am guessing he was instructing the once supposedly "dead" Lazarus. One has to wonder yet again, why this duty of after care was allocated to "dead" Lazarus, when Jesus had quite a large family of brothers and sisters. The Gospel of Mark (6:3) and the Gospel of Matthew (13:55-56) mention James, Joseph/Joses, Judas/Jude and Simon as brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus.One also has to wonder why the son of god Jesus couldn't look after his own mother once he came back from the "dead". I mean, he was only gone three days wasn't he?



Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Stephen
The Church has a far completer understanding of these things than you, because it is our business to know. We have writings that go back to the beginning.

We know it was John who watched Mary, it is a fact attested to since the beginning. 

Your position on the crucifixion is simply unorthodox. 



Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,099
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
We know it was John who watched Mary, it is a fact attested to since the beginning. 

Who was it  then that  as you say "entrusted St. John the theologian with taking care of Jesus' mother Mary"? 

Post 13 above

--> @Mopac wrote St. John the theologian was not just an apostle, but was even entrusted with taking care of Jesus' mother Mary.

And you skipped this , regardless of who it was trusted with the care of his mother

One has to wonder yet again, why this duty of after care was allocated to "dead" Lazarus, when Jesus had quite a large family of brothers and sisters?

The Gospel of Mark (6:3) and the Gospel of Matthew (13:55-56) mention James, Joseph/Joses, Judas/Jude and Simon as brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus.

One also has to wonder why the son of god Jesus couldn't look after his own mother once he came back from the "dead". I mean, he was only gone three days wasn't he?


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Stephen
Who was it  then that  as you say "entrusted St. John the theologian with taking care of Jesus' mother Mary"?

"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home."

And before you say that it doesn't say John directly, the chue h has known since the beginning of John.

What was transfered to John was received by the church, and so  now we Orthodox consider Mary our mother as well.

The Gospel of Mark (6:3) and the Gospel of Matthew (13:55-56) mention James, Joseph/Joses, Judas/Jude and Simon as brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus.
In that culture, brothers and sisters also referred to other close kinship relations. If Mary had other children, Jesus would not have entrusted his mother to John, as that would have been the duty of a brother in the sense that we understand it today.


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,099
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Who was it  then that  as you say "entrusted St. John the theologian with taking care of Jesus' mother Mary"?

"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home."

And I have already posted that verse that  indicates that the "the disciple standing by, whom he loved," was Lazarus.

John 19:26-27 King James Version (KJV)26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!


And I have affirmed this by posting the first time the scriptures mention " Lazarus the disciple whom he loved:

John 11 King James Version (KJV)11 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.

The scriptures disagree with you. As I have already pointed out to you at post 15 above.  


And before you say that it doesn't say John directly, the chue h has known since the beginning of John.

But where is your evidence?  You have none do you?  Just tellin me " the church has known from the beginning " is not evidence , is it?  The scriptures point to the guardian as being Lazarus.  There is absolutely no mention of, or reason to believe, that  "John " whoever he - was the guardian of Jesus' mother.

What was transfered to John was received by the church,

But you have not a single shred of evidence that proves that.. You have created a strawman argument

and so  now we Orthodox consider Mary our mother as well.


 You can designate Rumpelstiltskin as your father if you wish, it makes no difference to me, no more than you have adopted t the "virgin" Mary as you mum .


If Mary had other children,

She did, have other children and the scriptures clearly say so. But you don't like that idea yet won't call the scriptures out for being wrong - in your opinion.      Tell me. Are the scriptures wrong? Are you saying that the Virgin Mary didn't have other children of her own at all and that Jesus did not have brothers and sisters?

Jesus would not have entrusted his mother to John,

Exactly. He wouldn't have would he? And he wasn't .  That is why this John - whoever he is-  clearly is not even mentioned as being her guardian. But everything points to the once "dead" Lazarus, doesn't it?

You are full of absolute nonsense that you make up as you go.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Stephen
You are talking nonsense. You are just making things up. 

Debating with you is not profitable, because your intention  is only to be subversive. You don't care about what is true.

If you make yourself beyond reproach, what is the point in debating? There is none. I am not interested in arguing with someone who is uneducated and takes themselves as an expert.

I'm sorry Stephen, I don't respect your viewpoint, nor do I respect your approach to these subjects. It isincredibly irreverent and presumptuous. You have the tact and integrity of an ambush journalist.


Happy New Year.


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,099
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
--> @Mopac
You are talking nonsense. You are just making things up. 

What nonsense? What have I made up? 

You have made up the story of John and your church being given the job of looking after the mother of Jesus.  I have simply provided biblical evidence that suggests that Lazarus was given the guardianship. I  didn't make up the verses, Mopac, but you have made up and unsubstantiated story

You don't care about what is true.

That is your opinion. And not a surprising one coming from a devout christian.

Debating with you is not profitable,


That will be because  my beliefs concerning these scriptures, do not agree with yours.



because your intention  is only to be subversive.


Getting at the truth is not subversive. I don't care to change your beliefs. My intention is to listen to your explanations for what are the most garbled, ambiguous, half stories and falsehoods that these scriptures throw up on a regular basis. Because you cannot answer my questions does not mean I set out to "subvert, you or anyone else. I just want your explanations ;  not your -  made up as you go - excuses when challenged with a prickly question from your own fkn scriptures!!!


If you make yourself beyond reproach,

Not at all. Stop being ridiculous. I am not perfect by any means. And I am not always right. but I can and admit that, when I am.. You on the other hand cannot. Your religion doesn't afford you that comfort, does it. You can always correct me if ever you believe I am wrong but please do it with factual evidence and not what you only believe presented as fact.


what is the point in debating? 

You are the one refusing to answer questions concerning your own faith. here for instance >> post 63    https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3347/one-of-the-most-enigmatic-verse-in-all-christianity?page=3

.
 I am not interested in arguing with someone who is uneducated and takes themselves as an expert.

First part is wrong and the second part is also wrong. But I do know these scriptures inside out. I just have a different, wide eyed take on them that is apposed to your take on them.  But can define for me an expert in religious matters?  You seem to think that one only has to believe to be an "expert" 


I'm sorry Stephen, I don't respect your viewpoint,

don't be sorry,  I don't care!!!! I don't respect the lies and bullshite that you call the Gospel "truth"!.  And I certainly do not like the way it has been presented, preached, interpreted and dictated by people such as you over the millennia. 

nor do I respect your approach to these subjects.

No one is asking you to. but my approach it is


You have the tact and integrity of an ambush journalist.

That will be asking questions that are extremely uncomfortable for you. Particularly those you simply cannot answer without telling lies and making up stories.


Happy New Year.
Which won't be much different to the happy one I have just had.  Thank you.