Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
While a person is alive - they are a soul and when they die - they simply become a shell.
So, what happens to the spirit after it leaves its shell?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Typically, traditional Christianity has centred around the scriptures, the creeds and to a certain extent tradition. They have observed Sunday as the Lord's Day of worship.
Why Sunday?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Statichead
You gave no reason for the three-day warning
Does anyone of sound mind and body want to die? Especially at such short notice. And dead is dead and to my knowledge no one has come back to contradict me.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, it appears then that the bible is not so "god breathed" as 2 Timothy 3:16 would want us to believe.
My own suspicion for the tampering of this gospel is that it didn't conform to the requirements in that having Jesus appearing to only women and "saying nothing" to the men in Jesus movement of their experience.
The added verses no doubt conform with the well-known misogynistic opinions of Paul.
Not in the original ancient text are , the telling the other disciples. No Great Commision. No being able to handle serpents and no casting out of demons.
Marks added extra's.
9 [[Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.
Jesus Appears to Two Disciples
12 After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. 13 And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.
The Great Commission
14 Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. 15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.]]
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
these are biblical verses and written in opposition to the laws of the TotahNo. They are verses written in opposition to Judaizers who were erroneously teaching Christians that all of the Old Testament laws are still binding even though Jesus instituted the new covenant outlined in the Prophets.
Indeed, that is why Paul? used the derogatory term for these OT laws of "dung" and "garbage". and rubbish etc . and it doesn't matter what bible you prefer or are a Catholic or devout Protestant like Tradsecret that claims to be able to translate ancient languages into English.
Yep – σκύβαλα (skubala) = shit.
One of the top scholarly lexicons of Greek words A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition translates σκύβαλα as “refuse”, “garbage”, “human excrement”, “crud”, and “crap”.
"I forfeited all things; and I consider them crap so that I may gain Christ"…
I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ
and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ
and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
count them mere rubbish, so that I may gain Christ,
He's calling out the LAWS of the OT and dismissing them for newly discovered ones since he stopped being a bounty hunter of Christians and his claimed "vision": which is something else that is extremely questionable, .
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
It is abundantly obvious from the usage of standard exegetical methods of interpretation that your opinion on Paul is completely wrong.
Not unless you are saying those are not the words of Paul, they are not. The point clearly is, that these are biblical verses and written in opposition to the laws of the Totah. So it not so much my opinion as it is biblical fact.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,In trying to answer your post #7, and trying to get a hold of Jesus in prayer to help me answer your said post, of which He has not gotten back to me as yet, all I can say is that when you include my post #4 to your post #7, Houston, we have a problem!
I agree with you entirely Brother D. #4 #7 do appear to be in conflict no matter who attempts to deny this problem and massage them away with other biblical verses that also conflict with the verse/s already in question.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Quoting me doesn't save your bacon. It just shows you are as foolish and presumptuous as always.
I don't need saving Tradesecret. You are the person trying to disown your past statements along with over exaggerated qualifications and accolades all over the forum.
At the time I had the qualifications necessary - but was not a reverend
Which entitled you to be addressed as Reverend. And anyone that cares to can simply drop a query into their address box simply asking how should a pastor OR a Chaplain be addressed? You were a Reverend the day you qualified.
You were just far too stupid to realise that when you added Pastor and Chaplain to your ever expanding and grossly over exaggerated CV here on this forum and after you gave us all the workings of your profession also as a Criminal Lawyer, Tutor, lecturer, charity worker, anti abortionist, foreign diplomat, translator of ancient languages and farmer etc etc etc.
TRADSECRET WROTE:"I am a lawyer. There you go. Now you know. I always counsel my clients that "no comment" is the only wise thing to do when being questioned by the police. I don't care how you read that - no comment is the right thing to do. When we are in a contested hearing, I, in the first instance, will counsel my client not to get into the stand to be cross examined. It is the role of the prosecutor to prove their case. It is not mine to prove we are innocent. It is our job to make sure the prosecutor does his or her job properly. If my client insists in getting into the box - despite my advices - I will examine him or her asking open ended questions so that they can answer particular questions. I never ask a question I don't know the answer to. And I am not actually allowed to ask my client - yes or no questions because I would be accused of leading the witness. And then the prosecution will cross - examine my client. The cross-examiner is permitted to ask both open ended questions and leading questions. He would be foolish to ask open ended questions. His job is to ask leading questions. He wants a yes or a no. Why? Because then he can lead him into traps and inconsistencies. I counsel my clients - NEVER to answer a question with a yes or no - but always to qualify what you are saying - because the cross examiner never asks a question without a purpose or intention to lead to somewhere. But the first rule of cross - examination is NEVER ask a question you don't know the answer too. Because when you do - the answer you will get will probably upset the apple cart and throw you off. But I know that the same advice is being given to witnesses for the prosecution for when I cross examine. And there will be times when I insist to the judge - that the witness needs to answer the question - with a simple yes or no. But judges do not lightly support this submission. And the reason they don't is because they know that doing so - is leading the witness into unfair or unforeseen traps. Just because witness X saw Y do something with his left hand 6 months ago and wrote it in his statement does not mean that his evidence today that Y used his right hand and is confident that it was not his left hand - does not automatically mean that Y is innocent. statements made close to the time of the crime recalled differently 6 months later - are inconsistent and can be used to call into question the reliability of the witness's evidence - but that inconsistency does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case.So, yes, my client's pay me for the work I do for them. Do you have a problem with people being paid?Do I charge people to listen to my version of the gospels? No, I don't charge students, I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them.Do I allow students to question me? Absolutely. I have no problem with this. Do I allow clients to question me? Not in a court setting, no. But they are free to ask me whatever the like about the law. I do charge them for that privilege.I never talked about counseling session. I said I counsel my clients. Lawyers are called Counsel. We council our clients. We give advice.But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications. "
Those last two lines in YOUR OWN quote above speak for themselves no matter how many times you attempt to deny them, REVEREND!
You are delusional Tradesecret. And anyone here that has swallowed you ever expanding tall tales and ripping yarns are as deluded as yourself.
You can't run from your own self-created past Tradesecret like you do many threads on this forum.
Ther hasn't been a time that the Brother D. hasn't be able to crucify you and crush any of your straw-clutching and weak arguments. Simply because in the real world, you are grossly underqualified to open a book never mind read one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
A disciple is someone who followed Jesus. They don't have to be called a disciple.That is not conjecture. You already established it weeks ago.
So are you now saying that Lazarus was in fact a disciple, Tradesecret?
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Any day now God could start on doing another book.
They have already done that Deb.
The new gods on the block are the Corporations and Western governments are their new priests.
At one time when there was a natural disaster the Priests used to prey on the ignorant and uneducated, telling them they had upset "the lord their god through their sinning" so had to cough up more of their hard earned take home pay, live stock etc etc. It was a tax, Deb.
Now they cannot get away with blaming us for upsetting "the Lord through sinning" any longer, but they will still blame us for causing these natural disasters and will now charge us different taxes, such carbon tax because we have caused - according to them- climate change. Do you see the bullshit cycle of this, Deb?
They are purposely conflating a natural cyclical occurrence with mans sins - pollution.
Climate change come about simply because of the movement around the sun. It is an elliptical orbit taking the earth further away - ice age and then closer - the big thaw - every 1,116. The Sumerians knew about this, Deb and the priests, once they had usurped all the kings used this natural occurrence to take the piss out of the illiterate, ignorant superstitious and rob them blind. Just as the are doing today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen, as always you never do your homework.
I do my homework pretty well , Tradesecret. So keeping in mind that we are talking Lazarus and those two disciples following Jesus to the place of the trial, and I need look no further than this thread to show another great clanger of your own . So lets take you statements concerning Lazarus in its chronological order on this thread.
It is you and only you that introduces Lazarus to us here:
Tradsecret wrote: "My personal view is that it was more likely Lazarus who both wrote the gospel and who was this character. He by the way was a disciple but not an apostle".#111
I then have to correct you by telling you this:
Tradesecret wrote: My personal view is that it was more likely Lazarus who both wrote the gospel and who was this character.He by the way was a disciple but not an apostle.Stephen wrote; What makes you say he was a disciple? Does the BIBLE say he was a Disciple? Well NO it doesn't does it! YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN! The BIBLE clearly states that he was only a "friend".John 11#114
I then asked you what made you suggest Lazarus may have been one of the two following Jesus to the trial. #121
Many posts later and after much feet dragging and pressure from me asking you on what grounds you suggest Lazarus#128, you finally come up with this :
Tradesecret wrote: "I suggested that one of the disciples who followed was Lazarus. The reason I suggested that is most commentators suggest it was the disciple Jesus loved - the author of the gospel. That is the most common conjecture by most commentators".#135
So above you say you got your information that led you to your conclusion via other and most "commentators and their own conjecture"
I have since asked you can you not see the problem you have with that? ; #142
Well it obvious you can't so I will show you ONCE AGIN. The problem that you have with your own comments and those of "most common conjecture by most commentators" is that nowhere in the BIBLE does it even suggest that Lazarus was a disciple. Something I had told you as far back as post #114<<< see that? You had forgotten what I clearly had pointed out to you.
The BIBLE speaks of two DISCIPLES following Jesus. One is named and he is identified as being Simon Peter. The other isn't named at all. YOU suggested Lazarus who is never named as as DISCIPLE and YOU continued to suggest it was Lazarus because of the "conjecture of most commentators".
AND THAT is the problem you have, Tradesecret.
There is only one way that you and the conjecture of these commentators just might be be right. Do you know how that can be ? Tradesecret?
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
being a devout Jew and abiding by the laws of God for all his years were a complete waste of time...the word to describe the Torah is a "polite way for offensive things which people, when bitterly cursing in anger, naturally refer to.I take issue with you claiming a Benjaminite and fellow Jewish person is calling the Torah "excrement."
I am not surprised that you "take issue". When faced with biblical facts they don't like this is a normal reaction of Christians and I wouldn't expect anything less.
Especially since he goes to great lengths to quote from it, tells his student Timothy to make sure it is read in the synagogues, and expresses a deep love for it and it being the reason the Jewish people are specially blessed by God.
Whoever he may have been quoting it too makes no difference. As for the deep love you claim Paul? had for the Torah he certainly shows no respect for it and believed it to have been null and void, if the bible is to be believed. And you shouldn't be surprised that Paul? if indeed it was Paul that wrote it, to find Paul speaking out of both sides of his mouth.. Isn't Paul the person that is also said to have written Hebrews?
Well here is Paul again:
Hebrews
8:13 NIV
By
calling this covenant “new,”he has made the first one obsolete;
and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. <<, This is Paul in action and taking it upon himself to do away with the old and ushering in his new religion and calling the old "shit"> Philippians 3:8 KJV
And again here we see here Paul? setting aside the old for the new because he say's it is weak and useless.
Hebrews
7:18-19 For
the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope
did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Paul was expressing contempt with still following the old covenant when it is no longer in effect.
Well that doesn't make sense does it? Why would one continue following old rules when they had been annulled and of no consequence?
I think what you are seeing here is Paul? playing both sides of the fence. And keep this in mind while you are trying to defend Paul's contempt for the Torah;
Hebrews
8:7-8
"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another."
But sought one they did, didn't they?
Paul is often clearly shown in the bible to be two faced, saying one thing to his Jewish audience while saying another to the gentiles.
1 Corinthians 9:20-22
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
And here is Paul admitting to lying for the cause:
Romans 3:7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?”
I other words, he is not a "sinner" - bare faced liar - as long as it furthers his promotion of Jesus and the "new religion".
You can't beat what is spoken from the horses mouth , my friend. If the bible is to be believed.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
All very interesting but the thing here is, is Paul is clearly saying that being a devout Jew and abiding by the laws of God for all his years were a complete waste of time and had been "worthless" and waived them away with a dismissive hand and called them "shit" since he found Jesus.
And a simple search from the Greek translation goes a little further., calling it animal excrement. And saying the word to describe the Torah is a "polite way for offensive things which people, when bitterly cursing in anger, naturally refer to.
So it seems Paul? was spitting venom when he spoke these offensive words. I also think it was an attitude of out with the old and in with the new -religion.
But there again Paul was a self-confessed liar and would say anything that promoted his new way of thinking and his new religion. Not to mention save his own skin.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,Uh, all of the laws mentioned in the Old Testament Torah are to be followed to the letter, simple because Jesus, AS GOD, said the following:1. "I am the LORD, I change not." (Malachi 3:6)2. “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)3. "My covenant I will not break, Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips." ( PSALM 89:34)4. "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19)Stephen, are you alluding to the JUDEO-Christian bible contradicting itself like PGA2.0 has done at his expense? Even ROSENDS, who I had to Bible Slap Silly®️ a while back, would agree with what I have posted above!
Well tell me Brother D. Why then would the so called Christians of NT refer to a holy book that claim to also revere, as "shit"?
Philippians 3:8 NIV
What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them [the laws of Torah/ Old Testament] garbage, that I may gain Christ.
And if one is to be clear what Paul? means by “grabage” in the above verse, read on.
Philippians 3:8 KJV
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them[the laws of Torah/ Old Testament] but dung, that I may win Christ.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
Elaborate, please.
There are parts of scripture that the authors are saying that gods laws are "shit" and also seem to be implying that they are even null or void. I was wondering why that would be the case when the OT is also said to be revered as much as the New Testament by Christians?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherD.Thomas
Have you seen the Bible fool Preterist "PGA2.0"
I haven't Brother D. But did you read this above from the backpedaling lying Tradesecret?
Tradesecret wrote: Many months ago you [stephen] accused me of being a reverend. At the time I was not. I was a pastor in a church. But not a reverend. You went to google - found some obscure piece of information from the other side of the world and attempted to apply that to my situation. You were wrong. I didn't care. I just told you that you were wrong. I even tried provide some explanations as to why you were wrong. But did Stephen acknowledge the possibility that Stephen might be wrong? Of course not.#1578
So if I may I will correct the record Brother D. , and from the horses mouth in full.
TRADSECRET WROTE:I am a lawyer. There you go. Now you know. I always counsel my clients that "no comment" is the only wise thing to do when being questioned by the police. I don't care how you read that - no comment is the right thing to do. When we are in a contested hearing, I, in the first instance, will counsel my client not to get into the stand to be cross examined. It is the role of the prosecutor to prove their case. It is not mine to prove we are innocent. It is our job to make sure the prosecutor does his or her job properly. If my client insists in getting into the box - despite my advices - I will examine him or her asking open ended questions so that they can answer particular questions. I never ask a question I don't know the answer to. And I am not actually allowed to ask my client - yes or no questions because I would be accused of leading the witness. And then the prosecution will cross - examine my client. The cross-examiner is permitted to ask both open ended questions and leading questions. He would be foolish to ask open ended questions. His job is to ask leading questions. He wants a yes or a no. Why? Because then he can lead him into traps and inconsistencies. I counsel my clients - NEVER to answer a question with a yes or no - but always to qualify what you are saying - because the cross examiner never asks a question without a purpose or intention to lead to somewhere. But the first rule of cross - examination is NEVER ask a question you don't know the answer too. Because when you do - the answer you will get will probably upset the apple cart and throw you off. But I know that the same advice is being given to witnesses for the prosecution for when I cross examine. And there will be times when I insist to the judge - that the witness needs to answer the question - with a simple yes or no. But judges do not lightly support this submission. And the reason they don't is because they know that doing so - is leading the witness into unfair or unforeseen traps. Just because witness X saw Y do something with his left hand 6 months ago and wrote it in his statement does not mean that his evidence today that Y used his right hand and is confident that it was not his left hand - does not automatically mean that Y is innocent. statements made close to the time of the crime recalled differently 6 months later - are inconsistent and can be used to call into question the reliability of the witness's evidence - but that inconsistency does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case.So, yes, my client's pay me for the work I do for them. Do you have a problem with people being paid?Do I charge people to listen to my version of the gospels? No, I don't charge students, I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them.Do I allow students to question me? Absolutely. I have no problem with this. Do I allow clients to question me? Not in a court setting, no. But they are free to ask me whatever the like about the law. I do charge them for that privilege.I never talked about counseling session. I said I counsel my clients. Lawyers are called Counsel. We council our clients. We give advice.But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation. I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications.
The above is proof that Tradesecret declared himself to be both a Chaplain and a Pastor and before I ever addressed him/her as Reverend.
As for being addressed by his/her reveered title. I know it to be a fact that anyone holding the office of either Pastor and or Chaplain is to be addressed as Reverend.
Anyone can check this out for themselves with the click of a mouse.
Do you see what a complete and utter liar and backpedaller s/he is, Brother D. It is as I have always maintained . The compulsive lying psychopathic narcissist has no shame. The believability of the fantasy seems to be of no consequence to a psychopathic compulsive liar such as Tradesecrte #1572.
Created:
Posted in:
@ Mother Shipton aka the Witch
Come to take a "shit" again have you. I can only assume you must have been constipated after your months ban.
@Athias. You're the one posting inaccurate information on a public forum if you don't want people to call you out on your stupid shit, then don't fucking post it.
You are the one that doesn't like being called out on your own "shite", Witch..
Where do your god's come from and how old are they, Witch?
Polly said:>>" taking a shit!. #140
Created:
The
Torah (/ˈtɔːrə, ˈtoʊrə/; Biblical Hebrew: תּוֹרָה Tōrā,
"Instruction", "Teaching" or "Law")
is the compilation of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible,
namely the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy.
These 5 books are believed to contain all the rules, regulations, laws and statutes of god. So why is it that these laws are considered to be " shit" by some authors of the New Testament ?
I would be grateful for any answers.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What's worse.Being circumcised.orrrrrrBeing named Stephen.
Well one wouldn't hurt, Deb . And I am sure that it must get right up a "certain" persons nose that I was Christened and named after their first Christian Martyr.
Created:
Posted in:
Mark
1:1
The
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Some
manuscripts do not have the
Son of God.
So
again we have a much later insertion of something that was never
supposed to be there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Good morning Vic, lad.
You are bang on the money with this.
If you want a prophecy to become true, you will make it come true.
Good ole' 21st century common sense.
Vic, you may not realise how much truth you have spoken there. There are instances throughout the entire gospels where it is plainly clear what they were up to. Mathews Gospel in particular clearly states many times - this was done that the prophecy be fulfilled. ie staged.
I am sure you can trust me to show you more of these verses - should you need them - that clearly state they were staging the whole Jesus affair for the benefit of the illiterate and ignorant, Vic lad.
That was a brilliant post Vic. You made my day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Not at all. Have you ever seen Secret Mark? Because know you haven't read it? It is nothing more than a few incomplete pages and there is nothing to be garnered from it in the way of information never mind good reliable information, tradescret.I have told you. Where this forum is concerned, I have only questioned the bible, and my information comes directly from the BIBLE. I do not need to reach for extrabiblical works or other "commentators" to show how unreliable and ambiguous these stories are. This is not to mention it's outright lies. You just do not know your subject enough to realise this.Have I ever said I have read the Secret book of Mark? I know you think it is brilliant.
I have said:
Secret Mark is nothing more than a few incomplete pages and there is nothing to be garnered from it in the way of information never mind good reliable information. So it is hardly "brilliant".
Stop asking me about Lazerus.
I have simply asked you why the Jews wanted Lazarus dead? And is all you have said is that "Lazarus is irrelevant" here twice> #127 If you don't know, just say so.
You then went on - after being pressed numerous times - to tell me why it was that you suggested Lazarus as one of those disciples following.
Your reply was:
Tradesecret wrote: "The reason I suggested that [it was likely to have been Lazarus] is most commentators suggest it was the disciple Jesus loved - the author of the gospel. That is the most common conjecture by most commentators". #135
But you can see the big problem with that can't you, surely!?
Would you like me to tell you, Tradsecret?
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I felt so sorry for you, in that I only corrected your Bible stupidity once in said thread, where you thought Lazarus was a disciple of Jesus, NOT, and where you didn't know that Matthias was a disciple of Jesus in taking over Judas' removal! In relation to what I've just said, the link is herewith at your embarrassing expense again in front of the membership" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152/post-links/357571
👍
There are quite a few bible facts I had to teach him/her on that thread Brother D.and there are a few more in the pipe line. S/he denied forever that Jesus had secret disciples, yet has the audacity to brag, among many other things, about being taught to memorise the bible from an early age and "knowing it backwards and forwards in Greek and Hebrew"!
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherD.Thomas
Tradesecret wrote: I have not pretended to be anything that what I am. Of course - times change and what I have said in the past - while true then may be different now.
Attempting to bury your over inflated and self-aggrandisements of the past as if it never happened, doesn't work, Tradesecret. It will always follow you around while you keep up the pretence and while I am here to remind you if and when the occasion calls for it.
I have said it before, your self-centred personality is only overshadowed by your self-delusion which borders pathological. When faced with facts that don't suit you, you will ignore them and make up alternative ones.
Of course, the sycophantic fawning you used to receive and enjoy from some here went a long way to feed your ego has now waned considerably. And having had your over inflated sense of personal worth and power and intellect challenged it is only you now that believes your own BS. But then the believability of the fantasy seems to be of no consequence to a psychopathic compulsive liar such as you, does it. All that seems to count is whether the tale helps you rebuild the facade of your ill perceived greatness.
Your self-aggrandizing but ineffectual jumbled up mind can’t decide between fantasy and reality any longer, leaving you just struggling to be relevant and struggling to prop up of your fragile ego.
Created:
Posted in:
More tampering with Mark's Gospel. Where is Verse 28?
Mark 15:27-30
New International Version
27 They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. 28 29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 come down from the cross and save yourself!”
Mark 15:28 New International Version
28 blank, blank, blank, blank,blank
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
However for the most part - I am not pretending to be someone I am not.changing my profile from time to time was done as I have previously indicated
I wasn't talking about your forum profile. I was talking about your gasconading CV profile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Do we actually act in the interests of the newcomers?Some might argue that creating an organism that will inevitably suffer decrepitude and death is not in that organism's best interests.I would suggest that creating a newcomer is never done for the benefit of the newcomer. Just like mutilating a child's sex organ is never done for the benefit of the child, that's just a ridiculous argument that attempts to justify one of the more bizarre aspects of human ideology.We think therefore we also do stupid stuff.
Brilliant and spot on, Vic lad.
Genesis 2:5 and there was not a man to till the ground. Till, synonymous with dig and mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Yep. The bible here is shown to have been added to at a later time which throws doubt on its reliability entirely.
Created:
Posted in:
You use the secret book of Mark as your little go to book. don't be so modest.
Not at all. Have you ever seen Secret Mark? Because know you haven't read it? It is nothing more than a few incomplete pages and there is nothing to be garnered from it in the way of information never mind good reliable information, tradescret.
I have told you. Where this forum is concerned, I have only questioned the bible, and my information comes directly from the BIBLE. I do not need to reach for extrabiblical works or other "commentators" to show how unreliable and ambiguous these stories are. This is not to mention it's outright lies. You just do not know your subject enough to realise this.
TRADESECRET WROTE: Each of the four gospels are telling the same story, Not exactly of course. But they are all presenting it quite different ways. Sometimes they use the same source and sometimes they don't. The question is not whether they agree perfectly but whether they actually contradict each other. Witnesses never tell exactly the same story - or else they are seen to be scheming - a conspiracy. When they give different aspects - and sometimes different scenarios - it adds to the picture - but also provides the vibe of authencity. #139
That's what I have been waiting for. So let's not forget who said that, Tradesecret.
And you still haven't told us why it was that the Jews wanted Lazarus dead? Do you have an explanation from the BIBLE!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
questionable in terms of authorship
Authorship and particularly questionable regarding its reliability.
Created:
Posted in:
Forgery of the Gospel of Mark? This controversy has been covered many times over the years.
It is now widely
accepted that Mark’s contribution to the four gospels has been
added to and rewritten in part if not totally embellished. Synoptic
simply means; generally to speak as one. The synoptics relate to
Matthew Mark and Luke yet Mark’s gospel omits stories the other so
called synoptic gospels mention.
There is no
immaculate conception, no virgin birth, no husband Joseph and
astonishingly there is no resurrection!
So let us
concentrate on just this one aspect that the whole of Christianity is
founded on; the promise of the resurrection.
When we read Mark’s
gospel today there is in most bibles the familiar ending of Jesus
rising from the dead and appearing to his disciples Mark16:9-20
But it is accepted
that the original ending to Mark has no resurrection and it simply
ends with the women finding the tomb empty and running away in fear
and telling no one and that, as they say is that! Mark16:8
Indeed some bibles
still have this abrupt ending at Mark16:8 but those that do have the
extended embellished addition will notice that it is usually
accompanied the with notes admitting that verses from Mark16:9-20
were added at a much later time and “do not appear in the original
manuscript”.
Is this then also why in the
bible we won’t read about Jesus the “raising” his great friend
Lazarus in either Matthew Mark, Luke but only in John?
I have read that according to Jewish law that the soul leaves the body after three days and returns to god? But in this story Jesus hangs around down by the river for four days before returning to Bethany to call the "stinking" Lazarus back to the land of the living.
When these gospels
are read even summarily it is not difficult to notice that Matthew is
always either taking away or embellishing on the other authors.
A good example can
be read here:
The daughter is only
“dying” in Mark but stone cold “dead” in Matthew.
The not so “dead” only dying daughter.
Mark
5:23He
pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying.
Please come and put your hands on her
so that she will be healed and live.”
Matthew
9:18
While
he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler,
and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
Note
those word again “a
certain” ruler.
A
women touches Jesus’ cloak
Mark
5:29-31 Immediately
her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from
her suffering At
once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned
around in the crowd and asked,“Who touched my clothes?”
“You
see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and
yet you can ask,‘Who touched me?’”
Matthew
9:20-22 And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of
blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his
garment: For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment,
I shall be whole.
But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of
good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made
whole from that hour.
Yes,
even his disciples had to question that blinder. Interesting it is
that Jesus didn’t know in this instance who had touched him, but
can actually read minds in other parts of the bible.
And
did you know, that Jesus gave his disciples the power to cast out
demons? Matthew
10:1 & Mark
3:15
But
by biblical accounts, not all demons!??
Matthew
17:19-20 & Mark 9:29
Yet
we are told that the bible is easily understandable, unambiguous#55
and that the gospel authors are crystal clear on what they are
conveying..#62
It
is not until one realises that “dead” does not mean “dead” and that “demon
or devil” does
not mean possessed by an evil spirit that one can start to begin to realise
what is going on in these ambiguous half stories that make up the
gospels.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Are you ever going to grow a brain?You don't deserve to be on this site.But now it is just boring and tedious.Littel brain
There is much ad hominen there,Tradsecret and noting in the way of rebuttle..
but when someone pretends for such a long time to be someone else -
Don't make me laugh. There is much evidence here on this site from your own hand that shows you pretending to be something you are not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It's nice when you spout far too much than is required, it highlights all of your own contradictions that then cause you to backpeddle.
Example:
Tradesecret wrote: But for me to say the bible is crystal clear and written to be communicated does not mean that there are not difficult places that require more work or that may never be explained. [.......] such hard and difficult texts [.....] there are difficult texts#137
Tradsecret also wrote:
There are more of the same but need not be produced here.
We know you were looking at the secret gospel of mark -
Yes, I have read that. Among many hundreds of theological books and papers including the BIBLE itself..
The so-called Secret Mark for instance, has Lazarus well and truly alive in the "tomb" and was in the process of undergoing only a symbolic "raising from the dead", as I had always suspect and before I had ever read it.
Most commentators have concluded that John wrote the gospel.
So? And there are many commentators that believe Marks gospel was the first and that Luke and Matthew in particular used it as their primary source. Make of that what you will.
I am simply telling you AGAIN, that none of this has had any baring or influence on the fact that I believe there to be another story below the surface of the gospels as they have come down and have been preached to us for millennia.
But you do hold the bible as something unique which is attempting to tell us secrets.
I take the bible to be nothing more than any other ancient works. It is not unique. It is one book on religion among many other religious books. Is it a religious book or not?
And I don't believe it is "trying to tell us secrets" either. On the contrary, I believe there to be another story that the gospel writers seem to be at pains to keep hidden. This why they hardly agree on most things. Even the so-called synoptics are not synoptic.
And isn't that Jesus himself is always speaking of the secret " mysteries" and is forever telling others to keep things "secret" and had "secret" disciples. Maybe it's a case of those other "secret" gospels are actually telling the secrets that the bible is at pains to keep hidden? And you and the church don't like it so call them all heresy and heretics.
And you still haven't told us why it was that the Jews wanted Lazarus dead? Do you have an explanation from the BIBLE!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Do you think baiting me.
Not at all , Tradsecret. You came onto this thread of your own free will. I certainly didn't compel you.
That is the most common conjecture by most commentators...
Nice.
It helps in understanding a couple of key incidents in the gospel for me.
That will be those same "most commentators" helping you understand these "key [biblical] incidents" I can take it. The same bible you don't have any issues with#85 that you say is "crystal clear" and "unambiguous"#55? And tell us that "The authors in the bible are pretty clear about what they want to communicate.#62 I see. There can't be much that "most commentators" can teach you then. One would have to ask why bother with them at all.
"The gospel writers are not in a habit of hiding things from their readers#95
Not to my knowledge. The gospel writers are as bad or as good as Jesus himself when it came to hiding things and keeping secrets, even those from his hand picked inner circle of 12 disciples! There are times that his inner 12 didn't have the faintest clue what was going on.
That is maybe why you need to look at and study extra biblical and theological material to fathom these "key incidents" that you say you need help understanding? I can understand that, although, that does clearly contradict everything you have clearly stated in the past concerning your faith in the reliability of the bible.. Where as I have no faith whatsoever in these scriptures as the have come down to us and been preached to us over the millennia. I have said many times that I believe there to be another story beneath the surface, Tradesecret. And you don't have to take a blind bit of notice of what I have to say, do you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There is as much ground for it being Lazarus as anyone you have suggested.
I don't believe I have suggested anyone yet. Process of elimination, Tradesecret . But you have suggested Lazarus as suspect, and without explanation or reason. Which entitles me to do exactly the same as you. A door you so graciously opened for me and something a real lawyer good would never do.
and as for following the biblical narrative - well - just in the way you and you alone see it.
Exactly. Free from the constraints of the forced official narrative and dogma.
I have theory and nothing provable as I have admitted many times before on this forum. In fact, when it comes down to it, I can't even prove Jesus existed, Tradesecret, and neither can you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
21st century.Same old data transfer.
There is new data and information being uncovered and discovered every day now, Vic. And since the 1869 education act was formed and introduced education has been granted and free, compulsory for all children from all backgrounds. Some take advantage other don't.
Those nasty white industrialists, eh. If it wasn't for them, I am sure we'd still be pulling our water from the nearest stream and working the fields and mines for 5 years to afford to buy a horse and another two for the cart.
Hope Mrs Vic is doing fine.
Good night, Vic, lad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
(a) Facts or honesty?(b)Though if children are programmed with misinformation, can we blame them even when the grow up.
(a) Both.
(b)We live in the 21st century now, Vic . If those children were now 150 years old now, you may have a reasonably good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen, pseudo-Christians never learn.
Facts are hard to face for many of the faithful, Brother D.
Created:
Posted in:
There is as much ground for it being Lazarus as anyone you have suggested.
So you keep saying.
You don't get to set my rules.
I haven't set any rules though, have I? Up to this point I have simply stayed with the BIBLE narrative, as vague and ambiguous as they are.
And no one on this thread has issued a single slight, insult or ad hominem against you, that will be all you, Tradesecret.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I raised Lazarus not as a witness but as potentially one of the disciples who followed Jesus after he was arrested.On what grounds?The grounds that he was following Jesus. If you care, you go and look for it.
So that is no grounds at all then, hence no evidence. And are now making an unconfirmed statement. Not to mention totally avoiding a simple straightforward on why the Jews wanted Lazarus dead. And something you should know.
My entire conversation has been one of drawing out what you believe - not what I believe.
I have made my beliefs more than clear and on many occasions on this forum. And I know already your beliefs.
As for what I said previously, if you care, you go and look for it.
You just may regret saying that, Tradsecret. You keep setting your rules but are always the first you break them. It makes me quite happy every time you open the door for me.
Goose -gander.
It's not my job to do your work for you.
You just may regret saying that, too. And it is I that has had to persistently keep correcting your bible mistakes and ignorance, as shown on this thread alone.
And you should have cross checked your list of the 12 disciples too. << that will be something else that will be coming come back to bite you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I raised Lazarus not as a witness but as potentially one of the disciples who followed Jesus after he was arrested.
On what grounds?
Five pages and nothing.
Yes, and 4 of those pages I have had to spend teaching you what is actually written in the BIBLE!
Answer me this Why did the Jews want Lazarus dead?I've answered that elsewhere - but it's totally irrelevant for this topic, isn't it Stephen?No you haven't and now you are simply telling lies.And it is relevant to this topic. So I will put your non answer down to another "I don't know, Stephen, because I do not know my BIBLE after all my years of "studying it, memorising it. lecturing on it and preaching it".I didn't tell a lie. You didn't like my answer.
Well
lets see it again, for the sake of argument.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Answer me this Why did the Jews want Lazarus dead?I've answered that elsewhere - but it's totally irrelevant for this topic, isn't it Stephen?
No you haven't and now you are simply telling lies.And it is relevant to this topic.
So I will put your non answer down to another "I don't know, Stephen, because I do not know my BIBLE after all my years of "studying it, memorising it. lecturing on it and preaching it".
"You have not yet provided any evidence
For what? You see again you have lost sight of what the purpose of this thread actually is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
.
Me, I don't have anything invested in this topic
I can agree with that....to a point. You have had no credible input and your only contributions have been - among other things ...are your blatant denials of BIBLICAL facts.
Answer me this;
Why did the Jews want Lazarus dead?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
jesus died for our sins.OrrrrJesus was killed for us,
Neither Deb. Jesus was killed because he'd been a very naughty boy.... in the eyes of the Romans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You haven't demonstrated ANYWHERE that Simon the Leper or Simon the Caananite is one and the same person - let alone the same as Simon the father of Judas Iscariot.
I haven't got around to those Simon's yet. I have been bogged down by your persistent denials of what is actually written in the BIBLE, Tradesecret.
I am able to infer the first connection but the second one - there is not even a scrap of data supporting - save and except perhaps they both have the same first name.
"infer; you say. What caused you to "infer" Lazarus was a disciple when there is absolutely NO biblical evidence? The bible states that the Jews wanted Lazarus dead. Why? There is no reason given in the Bible.
Rather than attempting to look within the circle of disciples,?
I think it's called process of illumination, my lawyer friend. And where a better place to start than with those closest to Jesus. We do know for a BIBLICAL fact that it was TWO of his disciples that followed him after the arrest. We do know for a BIBLICAL fact that at that point of the story at least one went into the courtyard where the trial was to take place and after the arrest. And we know for a BIBLICAL fact that he was betrayed by at least one of his close circle of twelve, don't we? SO, why not another?
That is why I started with his own circle of twelve.
I have said already, I will get around to these other Simons and those that wanted to be rid of him when I have to stop batting off your denials of what the BIBLE actually states and challenging your own speculation and guess work and your if's but's and maybe's. Just like I am having to do now, AGAIN!
Let's see.
You have denied actual disciples were in fact disciples. You have denied some disciples were secret disciples when they were in fact secret disciples. You have denied apostles were disciples and have invented a disciple in Lazarus. And that is off the top of my head and without me having to go back over this thread.
You are simply casting spurious and unwarranted speculations and silliness into what is a clear story.
Not quite unwarranted is it. I have to keep reminding you, don't I? That there was trouble in the Jesus camp well before his arrest. Learn your bible, Tradsecret.
If you want to continue this discussion -clear up your mess and keep the posts shorter.
This thread will continue with or without you. I didn't drag you here, Tradsecret. And I don't need your input. In fact, you are useless as any sort of opponent simply because you haven't studied and do not know your brief.
clear up your mess and keep the posts shorter.
The mess has been caused by you continually bogging it down and me having to correct your BIBLCAL mistakes and things you continue to deny and speculate and guess about. This will cause me to do a recap at some point because you are burying BIBLICAL facts and your own BIBLE ignorance under all of your word unnecessary spouting, slights, insults and mockery.
And my posts are long simply because you cause them to be long and detailed. So, the only cure for that is for you to make your responses clear, short and precise and without unnecessary word salad like a real Lawyer would do.
See that!? I have had to waste time explaining to you why my posts are long and where "the mess" originated.
Keep on Mockin' , Tradsecret.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
As I have said before, we are watching her metaphorically die a slow death within this forum because of her blatant Bible stupidity, and as one of many examples, where you are easily wiping the floor with her in your The Story of the "certain" Witnesses thread. :(
Well, I must admit, Brother D. that among her many clangers, I quite enjoyed her last giant clanger on that thread Not so much as the clanger itself, but for the matter-of-fact authoritative manner in which she put it to me.
Created: