Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Your emotional highly charged and suggestive language is an attack against the Christian to ridicule their belief system, used to sway people to the counter-point of view with assertion after assertion:
It’s all in your mind and I believe it is the second part of your ridiculous statement above that is making you schoolgirl hysterical. I am quite calm when I post my threads of genuine biblical anomalies, and enigmatic sometimes unexplainable verses.
YOU JUST DON’T LIKE ME HIGHLIGHTING THEM FOR OTHERS TO CONSIDER. YOU JUST WANT TO CENCORE ME AND REFUSE OTHERS THE CHANCE TO READ OF THEIR OWN CHOICE AND MAKE THEIR OWN MINDS UP.
I am quite calm when I respond your silly accusations such as those above. Although, I will admit my highlighting bold underlined and sometimes capitalised text will sometimes give the impression that I am annoyed or being aggressive. So let me address that. I am not being any of the above. I do this because sometimes you intentionally miss key words that make my point relevant and - dare I say - truthful than you filibustering time wasting responses.
Do you know the difference between inductive and deductive logic? Can you answer me that?
Stop derailing a thread with your personal irrelevant questions. I will report you the next time you do this. This thread is concerned only with what I believe is only symbolic “raising of dead” rich people into his inner circle of by Jesus
It appears to be that,as quick as one can be “raised” from amongst the dead into the Jesus movement, onecan be just as quickly expelled from it. That is to say, one can be “raised from the dead” and then dead again for some rule breaking misdemeanour, as did happen twice to a lovely couple named Ananias and Sapphira his wife, according to Acts 5:1-11.KJV.
Acts 5:1-11 King James Version(KJV)
- 5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.3 But Peter Said,Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?4 Whiles it remained,was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.6 And the young men arose,wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.8 And Peter answered to her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?Behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door,and shall carry thee out.10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in,and found her dead,and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.Please address this vague anomalous statement and what is turning out to be a very problematic for you to explain away statements suggesting that there are different types of “dead” people.
I asked you:>
And can you enlighten us as to what "let the dead bury the dead" actually means and how one dead person or persons go about burying someone else who is dead?
“And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead”.Matthew 8:21-22.KJV
Your dire response was to almost admit that I am right in my belief of a symbolic "raising " when you tell us there there are two types of dead people!
here:>.
The dead are those who are spiritually dead to God. They don't hear His voice speaking to them because they don't want to.
So tell me how do you know or how can you tell the difference? AND _ How do you know that Lazarus and Jairus' daughter were not just spiritually dead " to god" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Me on the other hand do see your posing of questions vague,
Well, such is the nature of the internet. I can’t help in how you interpret and or translated text. I have witnessed your diabolical attempts at interpretations with words such as “touch” to you somehow translates as “light”: Incredible.
I think your intention was to close down everyone's argument who was opposed to you.
Again, that is how you have read it. I don’t mind but it was a GENUINE simple request for C-L-A-R-I-T-Y.
You already had your understanding or interpretation and just wanted others to put up something so you could throw it down.
Opinion and again,that is how you have read it. And you once again are wrong. I simply couldn’t make my mind up if or not these dire warnings were concerning the whole of the bible or just Revelation. I have had reasonable responses and yes, I have gone with the one that makes more sense -TO ME.
Yes, it is my opinion.and others as well.
And you and “others”are welcome to them. That is your right and I welcome them, it doesn’t mean I Am forced or obligated to accept them.
You close down people's views.
How have I done that!? How could I possibly stop someone putting their views on an internet open forum!? I am happy with the responses and this conversation or “argument” as you have put it, hasn’t closed down either, It has been continued.
I happen to agree here. I don't believe I need another explanation and you haven't got one either.
So what the hell is your problem? I said I got my answer, I made it clear then you accuse me of “closing down” other people’s views. It hasn’t stopped you continuing your “views” hasit? Here you are discussing me instead of the op. But please, you fire away if it makes you happy.
I am simply asking you to explain what you are trying to achieve by asking such questions
Explained earlier to you twice now, I believe.
I am only asking that tell us how you came to that conclusion.
It is the only one that makes sense. i.e. “this book” and not “books” plural, and of course the response from SkepticalOne
I don't think that is asking too much. you are clearly much more clever than everyone else on this site and we need to think about the wisdom that you are putting forward.
Flattery will get you everywhere ... but not in my case.
Created:
To begin with, just the name of this deadly life threatening tree puzzles me. Good and evil: The reader is introduced to two trees specifically:
Genesis 2:9 King James Version (KJV)9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2:17 King James Version (KJV)But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Why Wouldn’t the lord not want us to “eat from” this tree that not only held knowledge of evil, but also of good? Why Doesn’t this lord want us to know good?
Why was this tree created in such a way that it held knowledge of both evil and good?Why not simply two separate trees: one good, one bad?
And Although it was of this forbidden tree that they ate from and eventually were sentenced to die; the Tree of Life didn’t lose any immediate problem.
But the noticeable thing here is that once this couple had “eaten” from said tree they become wise. They had had their eyes opened by a so called “serpent” or mores thecase, on the face of it, a much wiser honest god that the one who said they would die.
I am reminded here that Jesus talks somewhat admirably about serpents being wise and instructs his disciples to imitate them:
Matthew 10:16 King James Version (KJV)Behold,I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
It appears then that this Lord of Genesis wanted us only to know what he wanted us know, and not a thing more: kept in the dark and ignorant.
It seems the wise ole’ snake had done mankind a great big favour.
Created:
Posted in:
Your emotional highly charged and suggestive language is an attack against the Christian to ridicule their belief system, used to sway people to the counter-point of view with assertion after assertion:
Your Opinion. I highlight a verse or two, you try to explain away and then I debunk your explanation. You don’t like it. That is not attacking. I am simply highlighting and bringing into question the scriptures.
Post#1: strangest story, vague, ambiguous and at one time just plain silly, Jesus not being able to make up his mind and not seeming too bothered about this person he “loved,” suicidal followers and confused women, hints that it all could have been a staged affair, But Not before saying this enigmatic and outrageous statement.
Yes all true.
Post#2: nothing seems to explain at all Jesus’ carelessness and indifference.
True again
Post#5: No these silly stupid illiterate disciples didn't understand the difference between only sleeping and DEAD, Oh stop it.
Read that slowly. This is why I asked you to “stop it”.
Post#13: I can see why it is that people like you unfortunately do eventually get mocked.
Indeed. I can. I haven’t mocked you. I Have simply said I can see why people such as you are mocked. Because of the silly explanations you give in an attempt to explain away these enigmatic and confusing ambiguous scriptures. And I stick by that.
You have even now had to resort to telling us that there are two types of death to explain away these “raisings from the dead”verses. I happen to half agree. What I dispute and believe I have proved was that these “DEATHS” or not “DEATHS” at all in the natural sense. They are symbolic“deaths”.Post #14: you silly man
.
Your responses do make you come across as silly at times and almost pleading, to the point of downright silliness,to be honest.. I believe you are silly in some of your responses. If that has upset so much, I can only say, deary me, there, there, never mind, rub it better,grow up. I have been called a lot worse on this forum.
Post # 23: Emotion before substance,
Indeed, and you have shown that many actions, but I can accept that,. I can also accept your dismissal of my points and argument. It doesn’t hurt me. I am not offended.
Post# 26: I haven’t made a single personal attack towards you. Stop telling lies simply because you're backed into a corner by your own unbelievable scriptures.
You are telling lies. I haven’t made ONE SINGLE attack on you personally, your just being emotional and silly.<<<<<that is not an attack, it is a clear observation anyone can see.
You made two personal attacks against me and you continually insulted Christians as stupid and simple.
No I am suggested the THE SCRIPTURES give the impression that the disciples concerned are backward and illiterate andare easily convinced.
Your whole language towards the Christian Faith is emotionally charged and highly suggestive, also towards the Scriptures beyond belief.
I wouldn’t say “emotionally charged” because I simply don’t care what you believe. My problem I have is with the scriptures and these gospellers not telling the whole gospel truth. AndI believe it is this that is making you “emotionally charged”........ and the fact that I just maybe causing others to look at these so called "gospel truths" with a 21ST CENTURY eye and mind and not a closed one forced onto them by some preacher stuck in 1st century Palestine. .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What would you consider to be a "credible expert"?
Someone who has studied and been peer reviewed by his field.Not wikipedia or an armchair theologian.
And also just happens to agree with you on biblical issues, no doubt.
Who "peer reviewed " the 4 gospels?
"play a central role in scholarly publishing. Peer review helps validate research, establish a method by which it can be evaluated, and increase networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation".
Not a single mention of faith also being a requirement or playing a "central role" in scholarly validation. So one can take it for granted then that ""because the bible says so" is not going to pass a peer review either is it.
I have told you. I believe there is beyond doubt a true historicity to the gospels and the characters there in. It has to be weeded out is all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There is no point in trying to answer a question when it is posed quite vaguely.
I asked could someone explain it to me.
SkepticalOne had no problem with my question. He replied right of the bat and not with 9 billion questions of his own before he would actually get around to answering the question
Then why don't you pose it that way, rather than closing down the discussion by attempting to make people look dumb?
It is straightforward request for an explanation. You seem to be struggling with it. Who have I “made look dumb”?
You seem to be losing all of your debates.
That would be in your opinion... again. opinions do not win arguments.
I happen to agree here. I don't believe I need another explanation and you haven't got one either.
here :
SkepticalOne Interpolation and redaction were known to exist to the author of Revelation (whichI recognize one of the verses above is from)and this was his attempt to keephis writing unchanged.
Created:
Posted in:
You were the one who used emotion by attacking the man (me) rather than the argument.
I haven’t made a single personal attack towards you. Stop telling lies simply because you're backed into a corner by your own unbelievable scriptures.
What I have done is highlight these unfathomable verses that you have tried to explain away with more unfathomable verses from the same source material. Get it into your head: That Simply isn’t going to work.
No idea what you mean here?
So you don’t know the scripture. I have pointed it out TWICE to you.and you have avoided it twice. I Believe these verses prove me right and you WRONG! here it is yet again!
Acts 5:1-11 King James Version(KJV)5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.3 But Peter Said,Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?4 Whiles it remained,was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.6 And the youngmenarose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.8 And Peter answered to her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door,and shall carry thee out.10 Then fell she downstraightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in,and found her dead,and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
So then, it appears to be that, as quick as one can be “raised” from amongst the dead into the Jesus movement, onecan be just as quickly expelled from it. That is to say,one can be “raised from the dead” and then dead again for some rule breaking misdemeanour, as did happen twice to a lovely couple named Ananias and Sapphira his wife, according to Acts 5:1-11.KJV.
The dead are those who are spiritually dead to God.
THERE YOU SEE! You have had to admit it. I had to drag that out of you after all you filibustering and evasion!!!! Or are you now going to tell us that there are many types of "DEATH" to explain away this ridiculous statement from jesus himself.
These are people ARE NOT DEAD AT ALL ARE THEY? They are simple people like me who have not been “raised” into the family of the movement from amongst the "DEAD".. To You and your god I am DEAD because I don’t “see “what itis you believe you “SEE”. I am spiritually faithless/DEAD.
This is also what is meant by “making the blind man see”.
I am simply living on the outside of the circle of the family that is spiritually faithful, whatever "spiritually faithful" is actually supposed to mean.
Many of the disciples were "DEAD"; they were kept purposely “DEAD” “for they didn't understand the scripture”. In other words they were of lower rank, therefore not allowed to know what was going on, IN SECRET. This is why Jesus had secret meeting after dark, told people not to say what he had done or who he was. Told his disciples to be snide and two faced. Everything was secret. And this tells me there is something else going on.
Jesus was no fluffy bunny as much as you would like to believe he was. He preached one thing in the earshot of Romans and another behind their backs to his followers. " turn the other cheek" go by a sword and this explains truly explains away may of the contradictory verses that you take at face value and deny they even contradict one another.
The list of secrecy in these scriptures more or less explains why everything had to be kept secret.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
"People like me?" What kind of person is that?
Emotion before substance.
Explain why we have people just "dropping down dead" for not paying their fees to the movement?
And can you enlighten us as to what "let the dead bury the dead" actually means and how one dead person or persons go about burying someone else who is dead?
“And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead”.Matthew 8:21-22.KJV
Acts 5:1-11 King James Version (KJV)5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.3 But Peter said,Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?4 Whiles it remained,was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.6 And the young menarose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.8 And Peter answered to her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead,and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What would you consider to be a "credible expert"?Do you have any support for this from credible experts
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If Jesus says "don't touch", I suggest to you that it is quite different to "don't cling". the first may have been before she touched him and might be a command not to touch her. It might be after she had already touched her and he is commanding her not to do it.
"Might may, might". If but's and maybee's
Struggling aren't you? And as I have pointed out to you twice now,that there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Mary had even touched Jesus before his instruction not to " TOUCH" him. Read these consecutive verses and top weaseling.
John 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Created:
Posted in:
It seems even though this girl was "raised" before their own eyes they simply didn't understand what "raising of dead people " was all about".
Mark 9:10 King James Version (KJV)
10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
My they are confused lot. One minute sick, then sleeping the dead, then raised from the dead, then dropping down dead again.. I think I can understand why it was that they found it all very it was all very confusing.
Hecame and raised her up by gentlytaking her hand. Then the fever left her and she began toserve them. (Mark 1:31, NET)
Sothey kept thematter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead might mean.(Mark 9:10, ESV)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why do you want to know?
What doyou think it means?
Do you think it is correct orsomething else?
Would it matter?
Why would it matter?
Why would it matter which parts it applies to?
Are you wanting to add parts or delete parts?
Or do think someone else has and wonder whetherthey have either received curses or been deleted from the book of life?
Do you have a pastoral concern for someone - orperhaps even yourself?
Typical. I ask a question and you respond to my ONE SINGLE QUESTION with NINE OF YOUR OWN.
hahahhahahahhahahahhahah my ribs hurt
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Talking of which, didn't Jesus`, mother and brothers believe he was insane?All we got are the fumblings of madmen.
ah Yes , he we are:
Mark 3:21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”
Created:
Posted in:
What is it that convinces me that what I have posted above at post 8 and 9 are more truthful and more accurate concerning “raising the dead” than those accounts put to us by these gospellers?
Well, the gospels of course.
It appears to be that, as quick as one can be “raised” from amongst the dead into the Jesus movement, one can be just as quickly expelled from it. That is to say,one can be “raised from the dead” and then dead again for some rule breaking misdemeanour,as did happen twice to a lovely couple named Ananias and Sapphira his wife, according to Acts 5:1-11.KJV.
Read this account carefully, it is quite an amazing story.
Acts 5:1-11 King James Version (KJV)5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.3 But Peter said,Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?4 Whiles it remained,was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.6 And the young menarose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.8 And Peter answered to her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead,and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
So this couple above are dead now simply for holding back a little money for themselves instead of donating all their income to the movement.
AND, if that isn’t enough to convince anyone about this strange ritual of “raising dead people” back into life, (and then throwing them back onto the “dead” pile) I Believe that this verse from Matthew supports perfectly my belief at post above, concerning Jesus’ inner circle called the - living - and anyone outside of it being referred to as “the dead”. It concerns man who wants the day off to bury his father.
“And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead”.Matthew 8:21-22.KJV
I'd like to see how that happens. Yet it is never explained how the dead can actually "bury the dead".
Anyone, I mean anyone who is level headed and open minded would be absolutely stunned by what is truly an absolute anomalous and truly an enigmatic statement from Jesus Himself.
There can be only one explanation for what appears on the face of it, to be - absolute and senseless nonsense coming from the lips of Jesus himself:
From my post 8 above>
To Jesus and his party all those around them and outside his circle were referred to as the dead. This then should begin to explain the meaning of “raising” performed by Jesus and co. It is that simple.It was part of latter stages of an initiation to one of the higher ranks of the Jesus movement called the - Living. The living was a movement not unlike the Jewish Essenes(which Jesus and the Baptist are also believed to have belonged to) but slightly more liberal.In layman's terms if you weren’t one of them, you were "dead". To be one of them- the living - you had to be"raised from the dead" (and usually rich) which Lazarus and his family was - Funny how Jesus’ entire close inner circle just happens to be rich & connected.Lower ranks were known as water, lepers, and the poor (who incipiently was a secret reference to the Essene community at Qumran) and by a few other titles of lower rank.
Two different gospellers giving different accounts about the condition of the same so called "dead girl".Jarius' daughter
Mark: and when he saw him, he fell at his feet, And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
Matthew: and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
You have had your confirmational bias tickled. You hear what you want to hear.
That's rich coming from someone who has not been able to put up a single counter argument to anything I have put to you without having to fall back and depend on an omnipotent, all seeing, all hearing being, for which you haven't a single piece of evidence for even existing.
What kind of "god" would fritter away a miracle on turning water into alcohol instead of eradicating ALL of leprosy instead of "cleansing" just a few lepers? Take your time. I am sure you will find a passage somewhere amongst the erratic mess that are the scriptures that, to your mind, will explain away the behavior of this two faced god that you call Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The rule of Scripture is that Scripture is its own interpreter:
I think I have had my question answered. I believe these dire warnings are directed to, and concern the last "book" Revelations only. I Believe they come directly from the author himself as; SkepticalOne has pointed out:
SkepticalOne Interpolation and redaction were known to exist to the author of Revelation (which I recognize one of the verses above is from)and this was his attempt to keep his writing unchanged.
And there has been much “Interpolation and redaction” and outright fakery “added to and other parts “taketh away” from the scriptures.
Created:
Posted in:
Here is the central message of the chapter:“I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”
And when was the last day? It seems it was the last day just happened to be the very same day Lazarus was “raised” then doesn’t, it, you silly man? Or was there another “last day”?
But it couldn’t have been could it. Because It appears life went on in that part of the world even after Jesus was “DEAD”.
You are doing what all faithful do; you are trying to explains away these UN - explainable with other UN - explainable verse from the same source.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Jesus did not get it wrong. Lazarus's death was for the glory of God. Lazarus death was not permanent.
I can see why it is that people like you unfortunately do eventually get mocked. You say Lazarus’ death was for the Glory of God. What does that actually mean? And why Lazarus? Why not the widowed Mrs.Pie Maker down the lane struggling to make a living for her family but still had served her god all her life?
Was it because she wasn’t rich enough and didn't have a single influential friend in the Palace or the Sanhedrin Council or in the conclave of the Priesthood. Because this is exactly the pool of influential people from which Jesus gathered his disciples.
It shows that Jesus Has the power over death, and those who die, even though they die, will live again (resurrection).
That is simply a robotic, indoctrinated response based PURELY on faith.
Here is the central message of the chapter:“I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”
And when was the last day? It seems it was the last day just happened to be the very same day Lazarus was “raised” then doesn’t, it, you silly man? Or was there another “last day”?
But it couldn’t have been could it. Because It appears life went on in that part of the world even after Jesus was “DEAD”.
You are doing what all faithful do; you are trying to explains away these explainable with other unexplainable verse from the same source.
Here it is again: "he who believes in Me will live even if he dies."
Andhere it is again: you are basing all of your responses on faith. It doesn’t work. These questions and queries I am highlighting need good, sound positive answers.You are simply telling me I have to “believe”, but nothing you have said thus far has been convincing enough for me to “believe”, at all. In fact you have furthered my conviction that there is another story underneath this false narrative you call the “gospel truth”. It is nothing of the sort and couldn’t be further from“the truth”
I believe Thomas is expressing his desire to follow Jesus and is not afraid to follow him through persecution to death,
Do you now?>>> “not afraid to follow him through persecution to death”<<< you say. I see. Well putting aside the fact that Thomas is only famous for “DOUBTING”the resurrection”, where was he come the crucifixion?
Was he at the foot of the cross praying for Jesus while Jesus himself was “DOUBTING” his father and pleading:
"Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
NO! he wasn't.
He ran away with all the other wanted Galilean zealots who had been forced into hiding, including Lazarus.
“But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also [as well as Jesus] to death” John 12:10.
Wake UP! There is beyond doubt another story going on here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
And I explained,there's no reason for me to assume there aren't consequences for tampering withDivine inspired scriptures as a general rule. It's mentioned for the book ofrevelations and it is mentioned in the OT.
So your are only assuming/guessing or believe then that these direwarning “could/would/do “ apply to the ENTIRE bible.
Created:
Posted in:
“And came they to Bethany, and a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And coming she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him “son of David, have mercy on me”. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straight away a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the Tomb. And straight away, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, loved him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looked upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus, Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan”. Mark. The Secret Gospel.
“Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, let us also go, that we may die with him”.John:11-16.
Makes a lot more sense now doesn't it. It should now be obvious to any open minded and level headed reader as to what exactly it was that "doubting" Thomas was suggesting. He simply wanted to be "raised" to a higher status or rank than just a mere foot soldier of the lower ranks of Jesus' movement..
Morton smith professor of ancient history , tell us:
-“such initiations and their accompanying rituals were common enough in Palestine in Jesus’ time. They often entailed a symbolic death and rebirth, which were also called by those names: sequestration in the tomb which became the womb for the acolyte’s rebirth; a rite, which is now called baptism a symbolic immersion into water; a cup of wine, which was identified with the blood of the prophet or magician presiding over the ceremony. By drinking from such a cup, the disciple consummated a symbolic union with his teacher, the former becoming mystically ‘one’ with the latter. Significantly enough, it is precisely in these terms that St Paul explains the purpose of baptism. And Jesus himself uses the same term at the last supper as Professor Smith points out, Jesus’ career is very similar to those other magicians, healers, wonder workers and miracle of the period”7.We read further from the New Testament that Jesus raises Lazarus;
Professor Smith is one of many learned scholars and highly educated authors who subscribe to the point that "raising the dead" was simply part of a more complicated initiation ceremony ..
Created:
Posted in:
"And There are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." John :(21:25)
Indeed There were: such as,
To Jesus and his party all those around them and outside his circle were referred to as the dead. This then should begin to explain the meaning of “raising” performed by Jesus and co. It is that simple.
It was part of latter stages of an initiation to one of the higher ranks of the Jesus movement called the - Living. The living was a movement not unlike the Jewish Essenes(which Jesus and the Baptist are also believed to have belonged to) but slightly more liberal.
In layman's terms if you weren’t one of them, you were "dead". To be one of them- the living - you had to be"raised from the dead" (and usually rich) which Lazarus and his family was - Funny how Jesus’ entire close inner circle just happens to be rich & connected.
Lower ranks were known as water, lepers, and the poor (who incipiently was a secret reference to the Essene community at Qumran) and by a few other titles of lower rank.
For instance; story of Jesus’ first so called Miracle, water into wine is simply the equivalent of the saying “making a silk purse out of a sows ear”; i.e. improving on something, making something better than it was before from something inferior.
But it appears on close reading of these scriptures that Jesus was going around and “raising”any Tom Dick or Lazarus into the movement. In fact he was doing it en masse and to the annoyance of the authorities and John the Baptist.
Christians have been duped by their church fathers sometimes inadvertently but mostly intentionally.
People Reading and or studying the New Testament in the 21st century have a lot more information to go on than those studying just 50 years ago. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls containing nearly a thousand manuscripts that explains many of the enigmatic,anomalous and ambiguous verses in the scriptures. And explain just who many of the biblical New Testament characters were. There is also the Nag Hammadi findof 1945. There are also the so called Lost Gospels (which were more likely hidden) of many of the New Testament players such as Judas Iscariot, Mary Magdalene.There is also the original Gospel of Thomas that does not even mention the death and the resurrection of Jesus? and Marks orginal has Lazarus very much alive in the "tomb" waiting to be "raised".
Faith is one thing. Blind faith is another.
The Myth of Christ has served us well pope Leo X (1475-1521)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Next,onto your objection to the mention in only one gospel. J.P.Holding gives an answer which I will condense and provide the link:1.there is NO requirement for ANY gospel to contain ANY specific events stall...it is ALL a function of what the authors were trying to focus on
I agree, they wanted to tell us the story that they wanted us to read and not necessarily the whole gospel truth.
2.Jesus did resurrections in the Synoptics that are not mentioned in John;therefore, we should not be surprised that John has some that the Synoptic mention.
He did. I am only surprised he only “raised”three people in all of the years of his ministry. The question for me is: why didn’t he “raise” the "greatest prophet" John the Baptist after such a cruel degrading murder by Herod?
Your Next point is simply a restatement of your earlier point:Again This point is answered with Jesus' statement in verse 4..
Yes that will be the verse 4 where we have Jesus telling his disciples that Lazarus wouldn’t die and then he eventually spells it out that he was wrong, makes excuse for being wrong “ all but for the grace of god” etc etc, (or you are interpreting that way) and tells then admits Lazarus has actually DIED!
What is the object lesson here? It is that those who believe in Jesus, even if they die they will live because they will be raised from death to life again, and spiritually that is what happens when one is born again. Spiritually their relationship with God is new and alive at the new birth, which is spiritual in nature.
That is a purely faith based assumption and illogical an one too. I knew you couldn't explain this story away without there being a "spiritual" explanation.
your next quip... How Did Jesus even know that Lazarus was dead? - STEPHEN
The Logical answer? He was lead by the Spirit of God and He was in constant communion with His Father:
Yes I just knew you would have to bring in the spiritual and the mystical to try to explain away this enigmatic, problematic, ambiguous anomalous biblical story about the wonder of resurrection.
Your problem is you do not understand what is meant by "raised from the dead"
So you have made a big mountain out of a molehill.
You would just love those reading here to believe that. You still have explained part one, to my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
...Jesus not being able to make up His mind is not what the narrative tells us.
Wrong that is what it clearly suggests. I say it appears that he couldn’t make up his mind because : 1st, he said Lazarus would not die. Then he said Lazarus was “sleeping”. “Sleeping” is put down to the disciples not understanding that when Jesus said “sleeping” what he actually meant was Dead! No these silly stupid illiterate disciples didn't understand the difference between only sleeping and DEAD!. I see.This is after he had told his disciples categorically, that Lazarus’ sickness was not life threatening.
...John 11: 4 “When Jesus heard that, he said, this sickness is not unto death.
But it turns out that Lazarus was very sick, his illness was life threatening and Lazarus did die. There is no getting away from it. Jesus got it wrong.
..It tells us there is a reason He Did not go right there.
Yes and for all his tarrying he got it wrong. Lazarus was dead. Even one of the women commented that if he had come sooner he may have saved Lazarus; indeed he actually says he wouldn’t have died:
21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.... 'So' in verse 6 refers back to the reason of verse 4.
And Lazarus DID die and Jesus was wrong.
....14 So Jesus then said to them plainly, “Lazarus is dead,
He did, didn’the? And very clearly and plainly. So plain in fact there is no room for mistranslation or misinterpretation even into day’s modern English language,DEAD means DEAD! Which contradicts his earlier statement that Lazarus’“sickness” was not until death, doesn’t it?
...15 and I am glad for your sakes that I Was not there, so that you may believe; but let us go to him.”
Believe what?
...Thus,Thomas could say, "Let us also go, so that we may die with Him.” If Lazarus was dead and Jesus was going to raise him, then Thomas would reason that if he died Jesus could do the same, per Jesus'previous statements:
Oh stop it. Why in the world would this man want to die and encourage others to die along with him? And you have missed the point that Jesus had showed no intention or inclination before hand or mentioned anything about resurrecting Lazarus from the dead. He Didn't say: "Lazarus is only sick but if he does die I will bring him back to life, so let us not be concerned or worry ourselves and extend our little break another two days- DID HE?
And There is no mention whatsoever that they did DIE along with Lazarus either is there?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
However, the BODY must die for the soul to leave that form and have another experience. Then the soul transitions from the death of the body.
I have read what you wrote a few times now. and I am absolutely baffled by it. It contradicts the gospels version of resurrection, totally in my opinion. Lazarus was "resurrected" into his own body.
John 11: 43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.John 11:44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
Jesus was "resurrected" into his own body too, wounds included.
John 20:24-29 King James Version (KJV)
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Care to explain, Etrnl Vw, ?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
However, the BODY must die for the soul to leave that form and have another experience.
yes just as I thought, no surprises there: one has to die first. Wouldn't it be just simpler to give everlasting life while i am still in my comfortable and beautiful shell. I am very happy in my own skin. I cannot see the problem.
Could you explain why I cannot keep this shell that I have had for over 60 years now?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
That is my hope and faith.
the above was not my quote. It was in fact a quote from PGA2.0. I did make that clear. I wish you would have too.
They don't, the soul is already by nature eternal as well as its Source. The conscious part of you (soul) never dies, the soul moves in and out of embodiments
And you evidence for that is?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
--> @disgusted wrote
Are you going to live forever?
ReplyPGA2.0
That is my hope and faith.
Why does one have to die first to "live" forever?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Post 36 of this thread. SkepticalOne wrote
You are attempting to have Stephen prove you wrong rather than prove yourself right.It is a lazy and dishonest strategy to make your view seem valid. I'm pretty sure I've already called this what it is: an attempt to shift the burden.
PGA2.0 wrote I don't see how our conversation would be productive since you have made up your mind and are not open to the discussion.
Not this particular conversation of so called “prophecy”. But there again, you are not open to discussing these anomalous verses coming from these gospels, are you? verses that you should be well read in and able to handle without effort.
Ifeel this is simply because you cannot explain them away. You seemed to have learned also to steer clear of any of my threads. Those too it appears contain awkward things that you’d rather not discuss because they are true and awkward and simply unfathomable even to you not to mention uncomfortable for you. But I believe I can explain the reasonably.
Go readmy new thread on the miracle of Lazarus and then explain to those reading here what is actually meant by verse:
““Let us also go,that we may die with him.” John 11:16
No. I didn’t think so.
That I Feel, is simply because you cannot explain them away. You seemed to have learned also to steer clear of any of my threads. Those too, it appears, contain awkward things that you’d rather not discuss because they are true and awkward and embarrassing to you.
You have simply slinked away and started a thread directed at me personally in the hope of tempting me to prove you wrong rather than you support your own claim. That Is cowardly, evasive and dishonest and I seen right through it. It is up to you to prove for yourself your claims; the burden does not lie with me!
PGA2.0 I'm not going to flog a dead horse
Not even on your own thread? But it is a dead horse in my opinion, I have said, I don’t believe in prophecy. Here’s an idea, why not try explaining away some of the gospel anomalies that I have highlighted: such as the whole story of the raising of Lazarus? It has to be the most famous story in these unreliable scriptures next to the resurrection of the Christ himself. But before you you do, take note of the quote I have repeated from SkepticalOne, above at the top of this post .
Your cowardly and sly deceit hasn't gone unnoticed.
Created:
That should be 40 years ago and not 4.
Created:
Posted in:
Part (2)
On arrival back at Bethany the centre of Jesus’ operations, ne of the women do seem too happy about the situation, so it appears on the face of it, they this woman didn’t expect any miracles that day either when she says:
“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 11:21.
What even causes her to believe that just by Jesus being there he could have saved her brother from a “sickness that wasn’t unto death”?
Maybe she didn't know the script?
We get to the“raising” of the man he loved.
And when he thus had spoken,he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
And he that was dead came forth,bound hand and foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
Yes , just like that, Jesus Raised him from the dead and off he went, not a please or thank you or how the hell did you do that?
So nothing seems to explain at all Jesus’ carelessness and indifference. It appears that Lazarus was closer to Jesus than even his disciples.
The Scriptures never mention if Lazarus was ever a disciple, it is never explained.
Why did Jesus love this person seemingly above all other never explained
Lazarus was on a hitlist but never explained: Why? What had Lazarus done to deserve to die...again?
“Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.But The chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus”.John 12:9-11
He didn’t even attend the crucifixion and after being raised from the dead himself, that’s gratitude for you. Didn’t this man owe Jesus his life?
And another anomalies in the fact that, this once dead now raised person who Jesus so, so loved,is never ever mentioned in the scriptures again. He vanishes completely and altogether. Unless of course, like many other characters in these scriptures,Lazarus also has another name or two?
The whole of thispeculiar, odd and enigmatic story can be read here: KJV
Created:
Posted in:
Part (1)
This has to be the strangest story in the Gospels: the “raising” of Lazarus.
From beginning to end it is vague, ambiguous and at one time just plain silly.
It has Jesus not being able to make up his mind and not seeming too bothered about this person he “loved”. It has suicidal followers and confused women and there are even hints that it all could have been a staged affair. And in my opinion for this story to be included in the scriptures it has to mean something other than the “miracle” the gospellers want us to believe it is.
The first thing anyreader of the gospels will notice is that this “miracle” appears only in John’s Gospel although, it is now known that the story once appeared in Mark's gospel but has since been expunged. So here, right away, we have a why? And a why?
It begins with Lazarus falling sick and his sister Mary (the one who had anointed Jesus Earlier) sending word to Jesus of the “sickness” and who had decided it was a nice day and would take a stroll down to the river Jordan for the day which was about a mile away. John 11:1-3 KJV.
On arrival they blurted out that Lazarus “who he loved” was sick. Jesus’ response is somewhat dismissive with him saying Lazarus is not going to die and decided that there was no urgency to Lazarus’ “sickness” and decided to extend his holiday down by the river for another two days and even contemplated taking an excursion into Judea were it was known that the Jews wanted to “stone him”. 11:4 -8.
Jesus then makes comment about a man stumbling around in the dark
But then tells his disciples that Lazarus is asleep and then he tells them “plainly” that Lazarus Is now dead!
11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death:but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly,Lazarus is dead.
So above, so far we have Lazarus, sick but not in any critical danger of dying, Jesus not worrying too much about and tarrying & dallying a further “two days longer”. Lazarus“asleep” and then, Lazarus is dead which is in complete contrary to what Jesus said at verse 11:4. He is not going to die.
How did Jesus even know that Lazarus was dead? When they were still at the river location?
Then there is this enigmatic and ambiguous statement from Jesus himself:
“And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him”.11:15. ?????
“And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there” ?
Why was he “glad”? And why for their sakes”?
“to the intent ye may believe”?
“Believe what”? This Is beginning to sound all put up in advance.
Still, they“go to him”, the now dead Lazarus.
But not before saying this enigmatic and outrageous statement:
““Let us also go,that we may die with him.”!!!!!? 11:16
Yes, you read that correctly. These apparent suicidal disciples or at least one, wanted to “die”with Lazarus!
Why? They were one minute having a nice relaxing tarry and a chat down by the river where there was no sense of urgency about his “sick” friend who he “loved”, next minute, this disciple suggests he and all those that were there should go die too.
And it simply has to be recognised; that there are absolutely no mentions or indications at this point that Jesus is even contemplating raising Lazarus from the dead! Or even spoke of raising the dead Lazarus or anyone else.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Not believing is your bias, not mine.
It is. But I have explained to you many times now that I do believe some to these biblical events and characters to be historical truths.
You make charges against God,
No. I make charges against the scriptures and stand by those charges that you have yet to explain.
I believe these scriptures are without doubt vague and ambiguous. They tell half stories. They are anomalous; they don't agree on many things and are very secretive. And I have every reason to believe these gospels are hiding a deeper, more violent and sinister story.
For instance,on the face of it, you wouldn’t believe that the Jews were under any kind of oppression at the time of Jesus. The gospels give the impression everyone was happy and content with their lot. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The Jews were oppressed and under the stern rule of the Roman yoke. Civilians were beaten and mocked and tortured for no reason but for the sadistic pleasure of the Roman guard and Pilate himself was a corrupted sadistic crook. They had their temple defiled and temple treasure stolen by the ROMANS IN JESUS’ TIME. But you wouldn’t have guessed it from reading the scriptures.
No, what you get is a long awaited messiah who was expected to free them – HIS PEOPLE – from the Roman yoke saying, pay taxes to the Romans and turn the other cheek and honor thy father and mother on the one hand and on the other telling people to sell their belongings even their clothes to buy weapons and that he hasn’t even come to bring peace to the world but a sword.
So stop with your preaching and start explaining a few of the anomalous and two faced contradictory statements coming from these gospellers.
I wanted to show you that your claims are unfounded and the evidence for your bias is unwarranted.
Which haven’t managed to do thus far? I asked you personally, what kind of god would fritter away a miracle on turning water into alcohol instead of eradicating of leprosy instead “curing” a few lepers?As I expected, you avoided that question like, well, leprosy.
Listen is all I have done on the – religion – forum is point out these vague and ambiguous half truths to anyone who cares to read them. Either you can explain them away rationally with good solid explanations or you cannot. I don’t care. I am just pointing them out, and there are many. I happen to believe I do have answers to these anomalous,vague and ambiguous verses. You do not have to believe my version of interpretation. I cannot force you, I wouldn’t try and I don’t care.
you professed to be a Christian.
No I have certainly not..
If you went to university you probably got talked out of that stance,
Stop guessing. Wrong again. I one day 4 years ago, simply got sick of a priest coming to my hospital bed and boring me almost to death so I decided to read the scriptures for myself and almost immediately seen what an absolute load of contradictory, ambiguous vague nonsense it all appeared to be... on the surface.
A one-time prediction by Josephus does not make a prophet.
I agree. But I did prophesy that the point would be wasted on you and the point would fly clean over your head.. which it did.
You maligned the Christian worldview with your views.
In your opinion. And it is this that seems to be worrying you. You claim to know the truth, then why worry? Are you again suggesting my opinions and views should be censored and silenced and that those reading here have no right to read what I have to say?
Listen, the only way to defend your beliefs if you feel compelled to, is to take on and address my queries rationally and logically and not like some teenage schoolgirl girl who falls outwith her best friend simply because she don’t agree about who is the greatest pop star. GROW UP!
I invited you to test your knowledge and understanding to its reasonableness and logic by focusing on a specific topic - prophecy.
And I have said, I don’t believe in prophecy which leaves me with nothing to discuss..
I did this because I believe it demonstrates the truthfulness of God's word when rightly interpreted.
No you have said you did this to test my knowledge and understanding. .See your quote above.
I don’t believe in prophecy.How much planer can I make that to you?
I read the scriptures different to you. I believe I see a different story altogether, a hidden story that the gospellers are at pains and are desperately struggling to hide.
it doesn't bother me at all that you don't accept anything I say. It is only my opinion. Get over it for Christ’s Sake!
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You are demonstrating an inadequacy to address the NT prophetic passages
I don't believe in prophecy, so I have nothing really to address on that score. I will add though that historian Flavius Josephus "prophesied" that Vespasian would become Emperor, Vespasian did become Emperor and in Josephus' lifetime. Was this a miracle of prophecy? Had god revealed this prophecy to Josephus?
I will tell you this: Josephus wasn't a prophet, he was a hardened warrior Jewish priest. He was defeated by the Romans at the battle of Jotapata. He went over to the Romans and became Vespasian's right hand man. Josephus was also very vain, and I know from all his works that he would have mentioned if his "prophecy" was revealed to him by his god. This point no doubt will fly completely over your head.
DEFLECT
I Have nothing to "deflect from, my friend .
You on the other hand have had to start a complete new thread in my name and honour to deflect away from those embarrassing questions I have posed and that you have struggled and completely failed to address and or answer.
IMO You are not faring very well in this thread you have started especially for me, either. I don't think you need embarrassing any more than you have been thus far. Good luck anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The whole Bible is the testimony of humans.
It is but many Christians Believe they are “god inspired”.
However, it's the principles and spiritual laws/concepts within the teachings are what we are examining.
We? That being Christians?
Regardless of who put the traditional Bible together it is irrelevant to the concepts and teachings/principles contained within.
It should be concerning the evidence shows they have been heavily edited have been heavily edited, contrary to Revelation.
why would the same principle not apply to the rest of the scriptures?
I haven’t suggested it does or doesn’t, but you have. And this is why Christians should be a little concerned. Given those horrid and dire warnings.
it's also mentioned in the OT so I really don't see what the issue is.
The issue is that, if indeed as you say the dire warnings apply to the bible as a whole then the warnings in Revelations Have gone unheeded in the NT in particular.
However, as I said...Ido in fact believe the passage in revelations is referring to revelations.
So you have not only contradicted yourself,you are now saying that these warnings apply only to the last book of the New testament– Revelation. That is what I wanted you to make clear from the off and you told me :
It should be pretty obvious to anyone that the verse in question would apply to both works, not just the old...if they are to be coherent. Post 8 above
I think it is pretty noticeable that your not sure which way to go on this simple question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Excuse me, I did in fact mean "this book" as in revelations. But I'd say it's a basic principle.
In other words it could both apply directly to the works of revelations, as well as scripture as a whole.
So you don't know now and or cannot now make your mind up. It is either the whole bible or just the last book "- Revelation.
Even after you said it:
It should be pretty obvious to anyone that the verse in question would apply to both works, not just the old...if they are to be coherent.
Not so "pretty obvious" to anyone now is it? Including yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You're guessing the authors have the FULL story,
You are the one that spoke first of "reading between the lines. see post NINE (9). You said I "was unable to read between the lines". I have read between the lines JUST AS YOU HAVE and come to a different conclusion. There is undoubtedly a bigger fuller story to the one these gospellers are spouting. Get over yourself. You guess is as good as mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
And there it is folks lol.
Yes indeed there it is. these gospel writers without doubt are hiding many things. and if you knew and understood your scripture these gospel make it quite clear the these biblical characters do many thing in secret. Like Jesus building an army
. secret meeting where the writers never tell us the full and complete story. They use innuendo, such as "at a certain place" and "a certain man" or a "certain woman" without revealing the place or the name .
They reveal names of inconsequential characters while hiding the names of more important ones. You simply do not know you scripture, my little sheep. try learning it for yourself.
I have said it before to people such as yourself. You have been led to passages to read by your preacher/ teacher and by the same token they have steered you away from the more contradictory verses that will conflict with the ones that you have been steered towards.
You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs. I just don't buy them no more that you buy mine. I can accept it. You should get over the fact that someone out there - ME - has actually has read these scriptures for themselves and come to a different conclusion to your indoctrinated belief and or opinion. There there, deary me, never mind, kiss it better and grow up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
however the passage clearly says THIS BOOK.
It does. But the bible is made up of 66 books to my knowledge. Wouldn't this gospeller have wrote "books" plural?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Interpolation and redaction were known to exist to the author of Revelation
And it seems nothing has changed. Because warnings have gone unheeded, depending on if we believe EtrnlVw or anyone else who believes these two warnings apply to the whole of the bible.
That said, one has to wonder, if these two dire warning only apply to the last book - Revelation, then this leaves the rest of the New Testament at least open to all kinds of editing where the editor will go unpunished. This would include all of the books that were left out of the final draft, all other writings, the gnostic gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, the Lost gospel of Judas, the gospel of Mary Magdalene, the original works of Marks gospel without its added part and the part that was taken away, and many more .
To my knowledge Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria compiled a list of works to be included in the New Testament. this list was then ratified by the church council of Hippo in 393 and again at the council of Carthage a few years later. The works were finally agreed upon and were assembled to form the New Testament as we know it today. Others were simply discarded and ignored. How can such a selection process be regarded as definitive? How could this private meeting of clerics infallibly decide that certain books somehow belonged and others did not? especially seeing some of these excluded books have a perfectly valid claim to historical veracity.
Do Christians even realise that these books that make up the New Testament were decided by humans and a not so called "god". More's the point, do they even care?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It should be pretty obvious to anyone that the verse in question would apply to both works, not just the old...if they are to be coherent.
"Obvious" . Not to me. That is why I asked for clarity. But I have no reason not to take your word for it.
So just so that I/we are clear, are you saying that those two dire warnings about "adding" to and "taking away from" the scriptures, in actuality are warnings not to alter, retract, extrapolate, add , misinterpret and misrepresent any part of the Old or New Testaments and not just the last book - Revelation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
So, those two verses you believe only apply to the last book of the New Testament - Revelation - in your opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I think the whole thing was an attempt to copy the Deut. verse.
Indeed. It is not uncommon for these NT gospellers to lift stories from the OT and pass them off as some kind of Prophecy or attempt to give us the impression that they are events happening in their own time.
I would thou like someone to explain to me what or which parts of the bible do these two verses from Revelation actually apply to?
Created:
Posted in:
So in the case of the two quoted above, would this be referring to the bible as a whole, just the Old Testament or Just the New Testament?do not add to it or take away from it."
Created:
Posted in:
And this one?
if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19. KJV.
Created:
Posted in:
"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"
Created:
I am well aware of what you said in te OP (seeing as I responded to it). You are attempting to have Stephen prove you wrong rather than prove yourself right. It is a lazy and dishonest strategy to make your view seem valid. I'm pretty sure I've already called this what it is: an attempt to shift the burden.
It is indeed. This is a simple but devious ploy to distract from the questions I have posed to this - Religion - forum. My questions it seems , are making some of the resident christians here a little edgy in my opinion. They are finding them uncomfortable and are struggling to explain them away without blaming these anomalous, vague, enigmatic, and ambiguous verses on translation or misunderstanding and of course the introduction of an omnipotent all hearing, all seeing and all knowing miracle working, so called God.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not the one using vulgarities and capital letters and exclamation marks.
I have not used one single "vulgarity" , but you keep calling me silly childish names. How old are you exactly . 6?
I use bold at times for emphasis. a point that you continually avoid. and that goes clean over your head.is not a crime and I haven't broken any rules, get over it.
And exclamation marks are for the correct use of the English language when pressing home what should be be an obvious a point,but totally wasted on you. It is not a crime and I haven't broken any rules, get over it.
If is all you are going to do is disagree with my opinion, you have made your point. You disagree, so what , I don't care, whoopi do, never mind, there there. Mind how you go. Grow up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The angel said he didPinocchio. That was the indication.
We disagree. So what. I have put my case. You do not have to take my word for it. Grow up you silly little man.
Yet you accept the part of the bible's account that he asked a question, but not the part where the angel says he doubted.
It was a question that I see no doubt in it . Simple , get over it.
Who was he punished by?
The story makes it appear that god or this angle punished him by striking him dumb . Get over it. It was his punishment for the perceived “so called "doubting”.Get over yourself.
You called it a punishment. We asked you, "so what?" You couldn't answer.
See above. I have answered that question a few times now. And you simply cannot cope with my response and neither have you bothered to answer or respond. Get over it.
So what?
Here is it is for at least the billionth time.
If Zacharias, AND Sarah, And Thomas AND John the Baptist AND Jesus AND Simon Peter all doubted,why , were they not punished or penalised by being struck"dumb"? This is why the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever UNLESS it is as I say, that Zacharias was ORDERED to stay silent and why his wife - who was supposed to have been barren - was told to hide herself away.
So your judgement disagrees with God. So what?
It shows your so called god to be a vengeful hypocrite. It seems to be bothering you than it does me. I posed a question. You responded. Your response was absolute nonsense. You don’t agree. I can get over it.
Sometimes they were.[punished]
Show me where and when a single one of those I have mentioned ever gets punished for "doubting". Or are you just lying ... again.
I am not annoyed at all.
Good , Then get over yourself you self righteous buffoon.
Why should we takeyour story on face value?
I haven’t asked you orany “WE” to believe what I wrote or believe or even to listen to my personalopinions. You have yours and I have mine. Take it or leave it. It is thatsimple. Get over it and yourself.
I would be a completeidiot to give your version any respect.
Then don’t. I am notforcing to am I.
You, Mr. Nobody, comeson to say, he did not doubt, and should not have been punished.
That is correct. I ama mister nobody as you are you. And correct again, I say he shouldn’t have beenpunished in the light of those other biblical revelations that shows otherbiblical characters “doubting” without punishment. I think that is a fair statement.You are not forced to accept it. Get over it.
And we should go,"Oh yes! God was mistaken, and you are right Stephen. God is wrong."
Stop being so silly. Howchildish. I have made it clear I am not trying to force anyone to agree withme. I DON’T CARE IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE ME. I am simply showing these biblical anomalies,that you don’t like.
If that is what youexpect,
IT IS NOT. I HAVE SAIDI DON’T CARE what you believe. I AM HIGHLIGHTING THINGS THAT YOU DON’T LIKE. AndI am not sorry about it.
Are you sure you are not annoyed. You seem like you are very annoyed, to me, ethang5.
Created:
Posted in:
Because perhaps you are unable to read between the lines.
Yes. reading between the lines. Don't kid yourself. Your guesses are as good as mine.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.Matthew 10:34 (KJV)
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36(KJV)
(1)So who is Jesus the Prince of Peace ordering to sell their clothes to buy weapons? (2)Why does he want them to buy weapons? (3)Why was the multitude feedings mostly men? (4) Why was Judas tolerated, when he was a known thief?
Let’s take these simple questions one by one.
(1) Christians Will notice the verse above is part of the dialogue to his disciples at the end Last Supper and just before his arrest. And there is again, mention of weapons:
“And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords.And he said unto them, It is enough”.
Peter at the arrest confronts one of the arresting party and lops off his ear , with a sword he carries.
Judas’ other name – Iscariot- is said by many biblical writers,scholars and authors and commentators, to mean dagger or more precise – latin sicarius, assassin/dagger man after the Sicarii curved blade that he carried and he was a zealot. The Sicarii were a specialist group of assassins among the Zealot Jewish rebels intent on driving the Romans out of Judea
And of course the answer here is, Jesus was instructing his followers to arm themselves.
The answer to question (2) is , in the immediate situation, Jesus believes he may be able to fight his way out of it and evade arrest as he had done before.
The answer to question (3) may well lay in the fact that he was building an army about 80 miles away from Jerusalem in the wilderness and out of sight of the Romans. Jesus had sat them down in Rank and file as if a military formation.
“he [Jesus] commanded them to make all sit down by companies upon the green grass. And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and fifties”. Mark 6:39-40.
This is obviously a military formation with company, rank and file that was divided up by maybe code named commanders,(“sons of thunder”)? It is also clearly stated that of those present that many if not all were men (5,000 & 4,000) and some women and children.
Question (4)
“This he said, not that he [Judas] cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.” John 12: 6 KJV
he was tolerated because he was rich and could fund the so called “Poor” i.e. the zealot cause.
So we have quite a violent lot among Jesus’close circle, do we not?
And, Like I Have said, these gospel writers seem to want us to just believe that these zealots just up and left everything behind...miraculously. Strange stuff when you consider just a few days later he tells them to expect to be hated, and not to love even their own children more than him and told them they may not even be worthy anyway.
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
And
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Reading between the lines of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
the word in the greek is the wordhapto. It actually has the meaning to anoint.At times it is also translated cling, grasp,touch, or light.
I don’t accept that. BUT if you say it means all those things then the word Jesus chose to use was “touch”.
That is quite clear. You conflating with other words doesn’t make you right and you are simply - and I believe - intentionally confusing the issue. Are you suggesting that the gospel writer here didn’t understand which word and which context he should use?
In the various versions of the NT, it variously translated as cling, hold, or even touch. In the version you're using, it is translated as touch.
Yes and all mean to have contact by touch.Stop pretending not to recognise this fact
you by your further insistence that it contradicts the later passage relating to Thomas.
It does but that is not my only problem with this verse. It shows bias, something I believe the gospel writers didn’t care about or probably didn’t have a word for one sided instances such as this. .
I personally think that it is not unreasonable to think that the author of the gospel is not so dumb that he misses this alleged contradiction.
So he knew exactly which word to use then, didn’t he? And in which context it was to be used, didn’t he? Do you now see how your excuses and explanations are falling apart every time you try anew approach to this thorny problem?
I have explained above. It wouldn’t have been a contradiction if the gospel writers of the time put women below men as they clearly did in those times and do at times it show in the bible.
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church”. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. KJV
Indeed the Gnostic gospels have The Magdalene Scared to death of Peter. Pete makes it quite plane that he is misogynistic.
Simon Peter said to them [the disciples]: “ let Mary leave us, for woman are not worthy of life”.
He also speaks slights behind Jesus’back because Jesus touched Mary in his (Peters) presence.. There are many examples of these instances.
Nor is there any reason to suspect that Jesus was so mixed up that he sends contradictory messages within such a short period of time.
Exactly! So here again the more you attempt to explain away this problem, here again you have shown it not to work.
Are you saying Jesus knew and understood PERFECTLY what he was saying and which word to use and where and which context to use the word “TOUCH”.
You are denying this in one breath and in the next you are saying the Gospel writer AND Jesus knew exactly what they were conveying and talking about.
They used the word “TOUCH” specifically!. BECAUSE THE ACTUALLY DID KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING AND IN WHICH CONTEXT TO USE THE WORD "TOUCH".
And , as I have already pointed out via the gospel of John that there is absolutely no reason to believe she had "touched" the risen Christ AT ALL at that stage. It appears he stopped her before she could LOOK FOR YOURSELF!!!!
John 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Created: