Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Speaking about dumbfounded pseudo-christians, I see that you are easily making the #1 Bible fool of this forum, Miss Tradesecret, the continued bible fool that she is, especially when she said that Lazarus was a disciple of Jesus in your treatise regarding The Story of the "certain" Witnesses, NOT! LOL! Once again she is over-dozing on her Bible Stupid Pills®️!
Well, Brother D. S/he is practically doing my job for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
In Matthew 1:16 it says that Joseph’s father was named Jacob: “and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.” (Of course we know that Jesus was NOT the messiah because Jesus was NOT from the flesh of the loins of David, but from Mary who was a Levite)Then in Luke 3:23 it says that Joseph’s dad was was named Heli: “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli.”The above passages are distinct words in context to Joseph having two different fathers, bar none! “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5).Therefore, in Joseph having two fathers as explicitly and biblically shown, then Joseph’s fathers had to be gay, then why are the Christians so upset with gay marriage? If it was good enough for Jesus to obviously having two GAY FATHERS, why are Christians against gay marriage as Jesus set an example that it is okay to have gay fathers!
Again Brother D. I have said many times before this is what comes of Christians adopting an ancient god they don't understand, from an age they don't understand and from a culture they don't understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
"also"who don't speak Greek
Says
the man that says he “is happy with the English translation”.
And “uses the bible as his primary source”.
Yes
I knew it wouldn’t be long before you had to fall back to the Greek
default.. And I have told you a thousand times, that by doing this,
you simply annul, make void and pointless ALL bible written in
English. Listen the word “also” means exactly the same in any
language.
And we also know from the BIBLE that the disciple named on your list Simon the Zealot/Canaanite also had the same appellation or surname of Judas “the one that betrayed him”. In fact, the BIBLE clearly states that they were father and son:HERE>John 6:71Then Jesus replied,“Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.So unless the BIBLE is suggesting that there was another Judas “that was a devil “and also with the surname or appellation Iscariot, then the BIBLE is clearly telling us that Judas Iscariot (“the one that also betrayed him”Matthew 10:4 KJV) and Simon Iscariot are father and son.And you simply didn't know this appellation because it didn't show up on your cut 'n' paste list of twelve.There is NO evidence whatsoever that the Simon the Zealot is the same as Simon Iscariot
Deary me. Haven’t you said Simon the leper was “either” cured of Leprosy or contracted it later? Where is the bible
evidence for this? And haven’t you said that “Leper” was “likely” his nick name”? Where is your bible
evidence for this? The is NO evidence, is there!??. So how did you
reach both those assumptions if not from other clues and insinuations from the BIBLE, that's how.? Your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze.
The
question of Simon the Zealot being Simon Iscariot is the BIBLES
insinuation, not my own given what is written.
And let us not forget
the many times that you bandy around the words “probable”
“possible” and “probable” “doubtful” when trying to force
or denying a certain biblical point and clear bible facts.
For
instance this outrageous ridiculous comment:
Tradesecret wrote: “It seems doubtful that Peter and Judas were hanging around each other”. #82
This
was you clutching desperately at straws
in a very poor attempt to
put distance between two major players that
are on your own list of apostles in inside Jesus' hand picked closed circle!? .
Only
a very ill-educated person would even
attempt such an excuse.. Does
the bible say they didn’t “hang
around one another!?
But here you are suggest that they didn't “hang around
together”.
And here above you said > “ “it
depends what the writer was trying to say”<<<<<
THIS from the same man that tell us the bible is “crystal clear” #55 and
that “The authors in the bible are pretty clear about what they
want to communicate” #62
I have
had to keep remind you many times why I created this thread>>
“I
am determined to highlight all the possibilities as to the identity
of the "certain" accusers.” #86 The clue is in the title.
I am not worried about the gospel writers I doubt it is the gospel writers either. #78
Well
you deny and contradict what they have to say often enough times. and you argue about what they mean too.
Look,Tradsecret, you
keep losing track. We are only at this point discussing those Simon’s
of your chosen twelve. As you know, there are other Simons that are
connected to Jesus; another 7 at least, and I have every intention of
discussing some of them in due course. At this juncture I am simply
pointing out to you that Judas ‘s father was Simon Iscariot. I
haven’t said Simon Iscariot was the “other disciple following”.
I
have shown you numerous times The BIBLE clearly states that they both
had the same appellation and /or surname. And the BIBLE clearly
states “Judas is [he that betrayed him] son of Simon Iscariot”
There
is only one other Simon mentioned on your cut ‘n ‘ pasted
chosen list of disciples and that is number 1 - Simon called Peter #99 So if you are you are now saying that Judas's father was Simon-
called - Peter, I will accept that. But only on the grounds that the
BIBLE clearly states that Simon -called – Peter was one of only two
disciples that followed Jesus back to the location of the trial. AND
let’s not forget both these apostles: Judas and Simon Peter are
both called “SATAN” by Jesus.But then outside of Jesus’ circle of we have yet another Simon,
don’t we? As I pointed out to you earlier on this thread>>#90
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So.
Do you remember that I said I would be returning to a question of yours? Well, I think now is the time to do just that. Here you go, just in case your memory has failed you.
Stephen wrote: And we know for certain that Judas knew the chief Priests. Is this a coincidence?[A] tradsecret wrote: Do we know for certain that he knew the high priest?Stephen wrote: But you can put the keys to that farm you say that you own on the fact that I will be coming come back to that particular question that I am glad you asked.#83Take a good look at what you asked. And read the verse in question very carefully, here>John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus, "because this disciple was known to the high priest,"Here above then at [A] you are questioning what the BIBLE actually states concerning if or not of this"other" following disciple actually did know the high priest?Well, if it wasn’t Judas as I suggest as a possibility being the “other” following disciple, then doesn’t it stand to reason that it had to be yet another disciple that ALSO betrayed him?And we are specifically talking a disciple of Jesus in this case aren't we. Because the BIBLE says so, doesn’t it?You play semantics when it suits you to do so. But wasn’t you that said “High Priests are generally known to most people”. #82Another disciple – wow!
Yes
another disciple. And it was You and the bible that opened the door
to the very real possibility. And he might even turn out to be yet
another Simon!
My personal view is that it was more likely Lazarus who both wrote the gospel and who was this character.
And
you have BIBLICAL evidence that points to Lazarus do you? Does the bible actually state that Lazarus was a disciple?
I've already indicated what I thought about Judas being known to the high priest. You can go back and have a look. Yes I tried to cast doubt on it.
I know exactly what you said concerning Judas. here>>#60
“And
I also highly
doubt it was any of Jesus' disciples, including
Judas Iscariot.
There is simply not enough data in the texts”
“highly
doubt”
I see. Because of “lack of data in the text”. Like I
keep telling you, it is that"lack of data in the BIBLE” that makes these half
told bible stories ambiguous and unreliable and forces one to assume or surmise, and use conjecture and speculation and guess work. Just like you persistently have done throughout this thread. So if you want to
continue with your double standards of - you can- I can't , fill your boots.
But even if Judas did know the high priest - this doesn't mean that the high priest would just let him into the courtroom.
How
do you know? Are you assuming this or do you have BIBLICAL evidence?
When I suggest that your logic could imply all 12 were in the betrayal together - I was mocking you.
I know . I have already told you, I never miss you slights, insults and digs but I have ignored them totally on this thread. But on this occasion and I loved it, because your "mocking" opened the door for me. As did your uncalled for insults from almost the day I signed up here.
I love it when this happens:
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.
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 11:11
Or shall we start picking the bones out of that BIBLICAL verse too? Why don't you just deny the verse altogether, that your usual MO when caught out by your own ever increasing bible ignorance.
You won't be the first person that I have come across that tries submerge his own embarrassment and ignorance under derision and mockery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
of course you are not including me as the only TRUE Christian upon this Religion Forum in your truthful statement above, "cough," correct?
I said "most" Brother D. most.
And I believe that your biblical knowledge outstrips anyone here when it comes to scripture. Maybe if I had been taught to memorise them from very early childhood, it would have helped me recall at the speed that you can, especially when prompted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Even though you are a Hell Bound Atheist upon your demise, we see eye -to -eye on many aspects of certain Biblically challenged members that are still embarrassing themselves here at DEBATEART Religion Forum!
To be honest Brother D. In all my time looking at these ancient texts, I have found it to be the case that it is atheists that often seems to know more about scripture than most theists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
As we have noticed, the #1 Bible fool of this forum, Miss Tradesecret, does not dare to enter this thread anymore
To be fair, Brother D. this thread is not her/his thread. It was started by the lesser bible dunce shila , so is entitled to come and come as s/he pleases.
this thread on the other hand,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen the verses in Matthew 10 lists all of the disciples. v.4 lists two names. One is a betrayer. Judas. The verse goes "who betrayed him".
Yes
and the JKV expands
slightly and indicates
that someone else also betrayed him:
Matthew
10:4
Simon
the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed
him.
Matthew
10:4 KJV - - Bible Gateway And
you can ignore that BIBLE fact until you
develop hematohidrosis ,
Tradesecret. But
every time you deny it. I will simply repeat it.
And
we also know from the BIBLE that the disciple named on your list
Simon the Zealot/Canaanite also had the same appellation or surname
of Judas “the one that betrayed him”. In fact, the BIBLE clearly
states that they were father and son:
HERE>
John
6:71
Then
Jesus replied,“Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is
a devil!”He meant Judas, the
son of Simon
Iscariot.
So
unless the BIBLE is suggesting that there was another Judas “that
was a devil “and also with the surname or appellation
Iscariot, then the BIBLE is clearly telling us that Judas Iscariot
(“the one that also betrayed him”Matthew
10:4 KJV)
and Simon Iscariot are father and son.
And
you simply didn't know this appellation because it didn't show up on your cut 'n' paste list of twelve.
I
don’t need to expand on this BIBLE fact. I
have written what I have written, as the bible says.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So.
Do
you remember that I said I would be returning to a question of
yours? Well, I think now is the time to do just that. Here you
go, just in case your memory has failed you.
Stephen wrote: And we know for certain that Judas knew the chief Priests. Is this a coincidence?[A] tradsecret wrote: Do we know for certain that he knew the high priest?Stephen wrote: But you can put the keys to that farm you say that you own on the fact that I will be coming come back to that particular question that I am glad you asked.#83
Take
a good look at what you asked. And read the verse in question very
carefully, here>
John
18:15 Simon Peter and another
disciple were
following Jesus, "because this disciple was known to the
high priest,"
Here
above then at [A] you
are questioning what the BIBLE actually states concerning if or not
of this"other" following disciple actually did know the high priest?
Well, if
it wasn’t Judas as I suggest as a possibility being the
“other” following disciple, then doesn’t it stand to reason that it had to
be yet another
disciple that ALSO betrayed him?
And
we are specifically talking a disciple of Jesus in this case aren't
we. Because the BIBLE says so, doesn’t it?
You
play semantics when it suits you to do so. But wasn’t you that said
“High
Priests are generally known to most people”. #82
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What might be argued using your logic is that everyone of the 12 betrayed him.
Like
you often say, "who knows"? We shall have to see.
But
you have certainly widened the possibilities and the circle of
conspirators against Jesus with your own question
above at [A] haven't
you? I didn't put that section between lines for nothing.
Why stop at two?
Why
indeed? Especially now you and the BIBLE have introduced the possibility of more
than one conspirator, Tradsecrete.
The disciples
outside of his inner circle of 12 had decided to leave the movement
and well before his arrest. But we
don’t know, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, if
any of the other inner circle had left along with
them at
the same time, do we?
And
we know from the BIBLE that those of his inner circle also ran away
when Jesus once was arrested leaving him all on his own.
But
let's move on to another Judas, number
ten (10) on your list of the
twelve shall we.
Thaddaeus;
or Lbbaeus or Judas
the Zealot in
Matthew and Mark, know as Judas, son of James, not
Iscariot in Luke and John and Acts. #99
John’s
gospel states he
is the son of James and in Mathews gospel he states clearly that this Judas is also a Zealot while making it clear that this Judas is not to be confused with Judas
Iscariot that just
happens to be the son of a Zealot. And
that
this Judas also
has another name not mentioned on your cut’ n’ pasted’ chosen
list, but you didn’t know that either and
is something else that you have omitted from your chosen list#99 his
name was also Jude, unless
you are going to try tell us that Jesus had thirteen disciples? The
interesting thing here is that, Luke's gospel has this Judas down as
being only the “brother
of James”
and not the son. Luke 6:16
Luke
6:16 KJV
“And
Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.”
Interesting
isn’t it, that Luke and Matthew both say “also a
traitor”.
Matthew
10:4
Simon
the Canaanite, [zealot Iscariot]and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed
him.
I
am not suggesting here that these
two Judas’ are one and the same or even that they have so same
father or even related. The point I am making here is that the BIBLE
is stating clearly that at this point, Jesus has two Zealots in his
inner circle and that anyone following here should perhaps keep this in mind. The history and the nature of the sicarii zealots is well known in theological
circles as you must know?
Anyway, be it son or brother of James, you should think on that a while.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Over two weeks ago I wrote:
This will be another topic Tradesecret will want to disappear and wish he hadn't started. #47
Have you seen him Brother D,?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
-->@Public-Choice YOUR GRASPING FOR STRAWS
When they are not creating strawmen, they are grasping at straw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
"Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts." (Hosea 9:14)"Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." (Hosea 9:16)"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up" (Hosea 13:16)
What a pleasant historical god he is . How can anyone actually justify this behaviour?
Created:
Posted in:
John 6:71Then Jesus replied,“Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”He meant Judas, the son of Simon IscariotYes. Judas betrayed Jesus. In this verse- Judas is the son of Simon Iscariot. In other words Simon is a common name and as such is even a name of Judas's dad. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6%3A70-71&version=NIV
Well you can go on denying what the BIBLE actually states but that will be because I have shown again you to be clueless to the scriptures and cannot face these BIBLICAL facts, Tradesecret .
But that verse clearly sates Judas SON Of Simon Iscariot.
This BIBLICAL verse also indicates another betrayer,
Matthew 10:4
Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
You, in your own chosen cut 'n' paste list of disciples here>>#99 have pointed out that one of the twelve was "Judas Iscariot,who betrayed him", I didn't.
Also on your list you make it clear that "Simon the Caananite, and the zealot" are one and the same person. I have simple pointed out that the SIMON Zealot Canaanite also had the appellation or surname Iscariot .
I won't be arguing these BIBLE facts with you simply on the grounds that they are BIBLE facts that you cannot accept.
And you still haven't worked this out have you?
How many attempts do you need at this verse before the penny drops?
New International Version
Mark 1:40-41 " A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”
41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I could have addressed the speculation and ambiguity of what is in your post above at #101 .Oh yes - and we are waiting for that to happen.
And I will when and if you start your own thread on the speculation, guesswork and ambiguity of these"other commentators" in what you appear to be attempting to introduce into this thread as some sort of rebuttal #101 while demanding only BIBLICAL evidence.
So if you want to discuss what it is "some say "and "others don't" or what "some commentators suggest", I suggest you start your own thread. It is you that continually insists on BIBLCAL evidence.What you are really saying - is stop it Tradesecret - play my game or go away. Sadly for you, no I am not going away.
No, Tradesecret. I don't want you to go away. I would simply like you to stick with the BIBLICAL facts as you insist I do..
So let us continue with this BIBLICAL evidence for now.
I am going to assume that you
are happy with your list of these 12 disciples and I am pleased that
you included the extra detail of other names and in which book they are
mentioned. It saves any confusion and saved me having to point them
out and you arguing over them. - Although you omitted a few important
BIBLICAL details which I will fill in myself from the BIBLE. So lets
us start breaking them down to see what details you have omitted to
add.
Judas Iscariot
Matthew
10:4
Simon
the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Same verse different bible.
Matthew
10:4
Simon
the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
So above and as you have listed Simon Zealot/Canaanite “who also betrayed him”. This clearly indicates another betrayer. But who was
he? What else do we know?
John
6:71
Then
Jesus replied,“Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is
a devil!”He meant Judas,
the son of Simon
Iscariot
Well we now know the surname of this Simon
the Zealot/ Canaanite.don't we. That is two inner circle disciples that are clearly related and we know this because the BIBLE says so. And again Jesus here is pointing to Judas as being "the devil". That will be SATAN.
So
then we have above a disciple of Jesus that you clearly identified as Zealot, Canaanite but omitted Iscariot.<<<The
latter appellation being one that is left off your not so detailed
list because you didn’t know and
it didn’t show up in your cut
’n’ paste.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There is always material to add to the above
That will be BIBLICAL material will it?
I could have addressed the speculation and ambiguity of what is in your post above at #101 .But it will all be "speculation and guess work" about other peoples speculation and guesswork which muddies the water further, imo. Maybe that is what your hoping to do.
It appears to me that it is acceptable to you for anyone else to use guesswork and speculate and for you to attempt to introduce what "others and "some commentators" have to say into your argument as long as they don't happen to be atheist or even neutral. So if you want to discuss what it is "some say "and "others don't" or what "some commentators suggest", I suggest you start your own thread. It is you that continually insists on BIBLCAL evidence.
And don't you say that you are comfortable with how the bible has been translated? And that there is no ambiguity at all. And that you believe it is easy to understand and is crystal clear? Don't you tell us that the bible is your primary source?
Haven't you said yourself that "the bible shouldn't ever be taken literal"? <<<< And would you like the supporting evidence that comes with all of those comments from the horses mouth?
Indeed, says the man with nothing but flat-out denials of the BIBLICAL evidence and that has done nothing but speculate and guess in response to what what the BIBLICAL evidence actually has to say? .
And you still haven't worked this out have you?
New International Version
Mark 1:40-41 " A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”
41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”
Meanwhile I will endeavour reveal the identity of these "certain accusers" with BIBLICAL facts. The BIBLICAL facts that you persistently insist on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,Relating to your post #63 again, and to the passage herewith: “While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord (Jesus as God) said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses.” (Numbers15:32_36)We can only assume that the passage above should be followed today, just like the 10 Commandments are, as per the following passages from the inspired words of Jesus as God:"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)“EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5).“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4)“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” (James 1:22)With you, I know that I am preaching to the choir, therefore, as Jesus' words above so state, EVERY WORD of His is to be followed in the Bible which includes Numbers 15:32-36 on any pseudo-christian working on the Sabbath Day Saturday! Lets see if any pseudo-christian within this thread has the audacity to state otherwise to said passage in question, HANG ON IF THEY DO!
I am surprised not see some bible dunce of a clown come up with that old chestnut of an excuse _ "but there was a new covenant through our Lord Jesus". Which can be debunked with just a few questions and relative ease, Brother D.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why don't you just put up a list of Jesus' 12 disciples/apostles
- first, Simon, who is called Peter, In all the gospels and Acts.
- and Andrew his brother; In all the gospels and Acts
- James the son of Zebedee, one of the boanerges (Mark) all the gospels and Acts
- and John his brother; one of the boanerges (mark) all the gospels and Acts
- Philip and All the gospels and Acts
- Bartholomew; All the gospels and Acts except John where his name is Nathaniel.
- Thomas and All the gospels and Acts but is also called Didymus in John.
- Matthew the tax collector; also known as Levi in Mark and Luke, not mentioned in John and Matthew in Acts.
- James the son of Alphaeus, and In all the gospels - and Acts except John
- Thaddaeus; or Lbbaeus or Judas the Zealot in Matthew and Mark, known as Judas, son of James, not Iscariot in Luke and John and Acts.
- Simon the Caananite, and the zealot, not mentioned in John.
- Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Thank you, And I appreciate the extra detail in your list.Ok. So now you have your chosen list, you will remember I asked you what these four Simons had in common, if anything?Simon “called” Peter.Simon Zealot.Simon the Pharisee.Simon the Leper. #86Your reply eventually came like this;Tradesecrete wrote: " Well they are all mentioned in the gospels. They all seem to have the same first name. All knew Jesus. ".#93Do you have anything to add to your detailed list or your reply above?The question is whether Simon the Leper is Simon the Pharisee. There are admittedly many similarities between the 4 source stories in the gospels. but there are also many differences as well. Some commentators say yes - some say no. the name of perfumes is different. The days prior to the sabbath are different.Luke suggests the event took place in Galilee, not Bethany.the woman in Galilee is a prostitute or sinful woman.Mary was from an accepted family, not an outcast.A former leper could not become a pharisee. Some say the house belonged to Simon - and one says the house belonged to Lazeruz and Mary and Martha.One was an anointing of a king - the other of a burial.Some commentators suggest two events several years apart - with some of the same characters. there are some interesting variations in the different readings.
Yes all a very ambiguous and contradictory. But we are sticking to what the bible actually states, aren't we.
And you didn't answer my question , Tradesecret: >.
Stephen wrote: Do you have anything to add to your detailed list or your reply above?#100
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why don't you just put up a list of Jesus' 12 disciples/apostles
- first, Simon, who is called Peter, In all the gospels and Acts.
- and Andrew his brother; In all the gospels and Acts
- James the son of Zebedee, one of the boanerges (Mark) all the gospels and Acts
- and John his brother; one of the boanerges (mark) all the gospels and Acts
- Philip and All the gospels and Acts
- Bartholomew; All the gospels and Acts except John where his name is Nathaniel.
- Thomas and All the gospels and Acts but is also called Didymus in John.
- Matthew the tax collector; also known as Levi in Mark and Luke, not mentioned in John and Matthew in Acts.
- James the son of Alphaeus, and In all the gospels - and Acts except John
- Thaddaeus; or Lbbaeus or Judas the Zealot in Matthew and Mark, known as Judas, son of James, not Iscariot in Luke and John and Acts.
- Simon the Caananite, and the zealot, not mentioned in John.
- Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Thank you, And I appreciate the extra detail in your list.
Ok. So now you have your chosen list, you will remember I asked you what these four Simons had in common, if anything?
Simon “called” Peter.
Simon Zealot.
Simon the Pharisee.
Simon the Leper. #86
Your reply eventually came like this;
Tradesecrete wrote: " Well they are all mentioned in the gospels. They all seem to have the same first name. All knew Jesus. ".#93
Do you have anything to add to your detailed list or your reply above?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
do you think that Public-Choice is vying to take over Miss Tradesecret's position upon this forum as the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool?
Anyone on this forum that is vying for such a position has a hard road to travel and a huge mountain to climb, in my opinion, Brother D.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Simon the leper may well have become Jesus' disciple. But is he Simon the disciple? Who knows. But he wasn't Simon the Apostle - which is the inference you are attempting to elucidate.
Why don't you just put up a list of Jesus' 12 disciples/apostles as I asked you to above. Here>#96 Then we will see who knows what and who doesn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
“While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord (Jesus as God) said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses.” (Numbers15:32_36)
Yet another dilemma. Jesus says he is the first and the last.
Gathering sicks! This, Brother D., as I have said many times before, is what comes of Christains adopting an ancient god they don't understand, from an age they don't understand and from a culture they don't understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
it appears to me that Simon the Leper and Simon the disciple could well be one and the same person.I disagree. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Simon Peter and Simon the Leper are the same person. If they were - it would have been evident. But it is not.
Well, I did ask you to read carefully.
For a start, Tradesecret. (1) I didn't say Simon Peter, I have clearly written " Simon the Leper "<< he wasn't a disciple, was he? (2) and in the same sentence I wrote " AND Simon the disciple".
This is exactly what I wrote: Bottom line HERE> #94
Stephen wrote: " If you have read carefully above, it appears to me that Simon the Leper and Simon the disciple could well be one and the same person.
Bottom line HERE> #94, so we can see that I didn't say Simon Peter, did I?
But who knows there may well be a "link" to all three of them?
Take a another close look at this verse that I posted above:
New International Version
Mark 1:40-41 " A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”
41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”
If they were - it would have been evident [in the bible]. But it is not.
And that is your only reason for dismissing out of hand everything I say or simply suggest, is it? Even though I have shown you to be wrong and lacking a number of times on this thread already.
And if, as I asked you above to read carefully you may have seen that it is evident. I practically spelt it out for you. So once again, you have shown to be lacking in bible scripture.
Why don't you list for us the twelve (12) disciples of Jesus's inner circle?
Your notion about lower ranks is spurious.
I don't believe I would make an outright claim I couldn't support, Tradesecret. I try to leave that kind of mistake to you. And I always admit not to be being able to prove some of the things I suggest, too. We know for a BIBLICAL fact that Jesus had chosen twelve out of his other disciples and only imparted some of the "mysteries" to them and not the others. This indicates there had to be some kind of hierarchy ranking system as churches have to this day. So it is not as "spurious" as you would like to believe. And the BIBLE indicates this was the case.
I will stick to the bible.
And that is exactly what I always endeavour to do. I mentioned as such above too: Stephen wrote: I try my best to stick with what the bible actually states.#94
It is you that continually ventures outside the realm of scripture and into speculation and guess work without giving any reason why. At least on the rare occasion I do that I give my reasons and for the best part, I support my reasons with scripture. So if you are going to "stick to the bible", then do so, and do so without your unsupported speculation and guess work.
The gospel writers are not in a habit of hiding things from their readers.
We shall have to see.
Peter was a clear leader within the apostolic group - even before Jesus' death.
Well if that be the case, Tradesecret, you have just confirmed what I have been suggesting all along. But you just cannot see it can you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
I assume it came over from the Greek "petra."Indeed, as when one is said to be petrified, frozen in their track's statue like, turned to stone.Interesting that the ancients referred to almost anything that came from the ground as stone . Think on that for a while,K_Michael.petrified/ˈpɛtrɪfʌɪd/adjective
- 1.so frightened that one is unable to move; terrified:
Interesting that the ancients referred to almost anything that came from the ground as stone . Think on that for a while,K_Michael.Petroleum, saltpeter, a rock-hard Peter checks out to me.Does a "Pillar of Salt", ring any bells?"Ah, yes! One of the oddest divine murders of the Old Testament. What's your point, that Lot's wife "came from the ground"?
Be for me to be accused of leading anyone "astray" but it is not so odd when we consider what Jesus is alleged to have said: here> Matthew 5:13.
So here then we see that Jesus likens his disciples to something that is held as valued and precious or in high esteem. And keep in mind lots "wife" is never named in Old Testament scripture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
I assume it came over from the Greek "petra."Indeed, as when one is said to be petrified, frozen in their track's statue like, turned to stone.Interesting that the ancients referred to almost anything that came from the ground as stone . Think on that for a while,K_Michael.petrified/ˈpɛtrɪfʌɪd/adjective
- 1.so frightened that one is unable to move; terrified:
Does a "Pillar of Salt", ring any bells?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
I assume it came over from the Greek "petra."
Indeed, as when one is said to be petrified, frozen in their track's statue like, turned to stone.
Interesting that the ancients referred to almost anything that came from the ground as stone . Think on that for a while,K_Michael.
petrified
/ˈpɛtrɪfʌɪd/
adjective
- 1.so frightened that one is unable to move; terrified:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
All this will be great insight for when the knew batch of gods start arriving.
What is the - great insight, Deb?
I'm trying my hardest to know when a collective, AMEN is about to occur.
How about never saying it at all, Deb.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What do these Simons have in common, if anything?Simon “called” Peter.Simon Zealot.Simon the Pharisee.Simon the Leper.Well they are all mentioned in the gospels. They all seem to have the same first name. There are several other Simons you missed as well.All knew Jesus.
Indeed they all knew Jesus. And I didn't miss any of the others, either. I mentioned above : Stephen Wrote: " or any of the other Simons". HERE> #90
I only singled out these particular four because these are the four I am interested in for the moment.
When Jesus was invited to Simon the Leper's house, is Simon literally suffering from leprosy?That's an interesting question. After all, lepers were generally put outside the city. So it is likely a nickname for Simon.
Well we know for a biblical fact that Jesus often either changed names of some of his disciples and/or indeed gave them nicknames. As did the god the OT. Abram became Abraham, Jacob became Israel etc etc. So it certainly wouldn't have been unusual for Jesus to have done the same. We know for a biblical fact the he referred to some in Mark 3:17, and gave John and James the nickname "Boanerges" meaning sons of Thunder, and we know who "Thunder" was. Then we have "And he [Andrew] brought him [Simon] to Jesus John 1:42 "Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, 'You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas' meaning Stone/rock." Was this Simon to become Peter ? And when we look at the name Jonah we find that name means - Dove.
[A]Either because had been healed from leprosy in the past [B]or that he at some time after this situation got sick with Leprosy and the writer of the gospel - was able to refer to this event by specificity because people knew who Simon the Leper was.
[A] Well seeing that you are only speculating, I would have said this was unlikely as I am sure it would have been mentioned.
[B] I believe that too to be doubtful. Simply because the bible text has it that he went to the Lepers house. It doesn't state that he was once a leaper or he became a leper. And I try my best to stick with what the bible actually states. I can only, like you, speculate as to what this all means. I believe it was a nick name given to someone of a lower rank and had not yet been fully accepted into the Jesus movement. If this is not the case then it leaves the story wide open to the obvious question- why didn't Jesus heal this man of his terrible disease? A man that had been kind enough to invite Jesus (and others it appears) to a meal at his own home? And isn't this the same Simon, ( brother of Andrew) who's Mother-in - Law was cured by Jesus? Or maybe he did "cure the leper" and the bible does mention it? How about this man:
40 A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”
41 Jesus was indignant He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” 42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.
43 Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: 44 “See that you don’t tell this to anyone. <<<<<< that there at 44 is Jesus telling this man to keep it secret.
I suppose you are going to suggest the same about the other Simons.Jesus called Simon, Peter. so Peter is his nickname, not Simon.Simon the Zealot - zealot was also a nickname. Unsurprisingly,Simon the pharisee - it would be referring to his status as a pharisee.
Well do you think they are linked in any way to the other Simons?
So - now how about you tell us how you link them together?
I didn't say I could link them together. I simply asked you what they have in common if anything?
But I will say this; If you have read carefully above, it appears to me that Simon the Leper and Simon the disciple could well be one and the same person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
What about. Amun -Ra. [?]
Well I believe you hit the post with that there Deb. You may have even scored a outright goal? See what you think.
Amun (also Amon, Ammon, Amen, Amun-Ra) is the ancient Egyptian god of the sun and air.
Interesting isn't it that all four gospels end with the word or name - Amen.
This is not all, Deb. Pick a bible , any bible, and you can read that from Revelation we find this:
“And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:
“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Origin of the creation of God, says this:
To take this further, in the gnostic gospels we can read of
an incident in which Jesus orders his disciples to:
"answer Amen to
Me" and quoting the gnostic gospels further “he began to intone a
mystical chant", which reads in part;
“To
the universe belongs to the dancer.’ – Amen".
"He
who does not dance does not know what happens’ – Amen".
"Now
you follow my dance’. – Amen"
" For you could by no means have
understood what you suffer’. – Amen".
Which reminds us of this biblical verse: “And
the woman shall say, Amen, Amen”. Numbers 5: 22.KJV
Then there are that many Egyptian Pharaohs who names began or ended with Amen
And who can forget Historian Josephus? Not to upset the devout Christian we hadn't better leave out what he had to say concerning "an Egyptian".
"There was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives".[.........]The Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them". Josephus Jewish Wars.
Wasn't Jesus' and the holy family told to flee to Egypt, Deb? Yes here we are>
Matthew 2:13 New International Version
The Escape to Egypt
13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”
The story of Jesus is about as clear as mud, isn't it, Deb?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I'm certainly happy to discuss but your diatribe mostly just makes me not want to engage.
Then do not engage. I didn't drag you here,.. There has been no rants or "diatribe" on this, thread Trade secret. So, I can take it that you will be leavening my thread. That is regretful
Prove to me that you actually have something that is worth discussing
But here you are attempting to discuss something you don't see as worth discussing.
If you are serious, then answer these questions if you can.
What do these Simons have in common, if anything?
Simon “called” Peter.
Simon Zealot.
Simon the Pharisee.
Simon the Leper.
When Jesus was invited to Simon the Leper's house, is Simon literally suffering from leprosy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Interesting it is that although this thread has been relatively left alone by other members and seems to have boiled down to just you and me, rather than taking advantage of this perfect and rare opportunity to discuss and debate and seek to prove the rightness of your cause by the use of any effective argument or discussion you would rather me just shut up and go away. That won't be happening anytime soon, and your slights and veiled jibes are not working.
think you are just cutting and pasting someone else's work. Try and to do something original.
Then if that is what you sincerely believe, I suggest you seek out this other work and search it for flaws and pit falls and good argument. Because to my knowledge no one has discussed or questioned or written about the identity of these two "certain " accuser and I would love to see this work for myself as I am sure others here would.
Meanwhile, if you genuinely want to discuss this topic give this rare opportunity, I suggest that you look into your boy Simon Peter who the lord called Satan or any of the other nine Simons, as I have done. For instance:
when Jesus was invited to Simon the Leper's house, is Simon literally suffering from leprosy? Meanwhile, I shall endeavour persevere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Regarding secrets and lies, secrets maybe, lies are harder to identify, what we may perceive to be a lie, if it is believed to be true, even if obviously false, isn’t a lie
There is a lot of truth in that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Tradseceret wrote at> #87.....
Playing the man and not the ball doesn't and won't ever win you an argument.
And your non answer to my question speaks volumes about you, here >>>
Stephen wrote: Tell me, Trade -SECRET. What do these Simons have in common, if anything?Simon “called” Peter.Simon Zealot.Simon the Pharisee.Simon the Leper.Tradsecret wrote: .....ice cream. #87
So I think it best I continue in my endeavour to attempt to I dentify these two "certain" accusers. Unless of course your reply of "ice cream" can be verified BIBLICLY!?
As explained above,#70 I have pointed out the BIBLICAL fact that both Simon called Peter and Judas Iscariot are both either, in metaphor or literally, are either possessed by "SATAN" in the case of Judas and directly called "SATAN" by the lord Jesus himself. As I have already shown with verses from the BIBLE>
Judas Iscariot earlier (he that Satan had entered,Luke 22:3 &John 13:27 ) Simon called Peter ( he that Jesus himself called "Satan" and his "stumbling block"Matthew 16:23#70
What is SATAN or A SATAN? Well one doesn't have to look much further than the BIBLE itself. Here below are are two identical verses from two different BIBLES written in English;
Psalm
109:6
King James Version (KJV)
“Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand”.
King James Version (KJV)
“Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand”.
Psalm
109:6
New International Version (NIV)
“Appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy;
let an accuser stand at his right hand”.
New International Version (NIV)
“Appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy;
let an accuser stand at his right hand”.
So as can be clearly seen, the word SATAN means nothing more than accuser. In fact nearly all bible written in English use the word "Accuser" with only few others using the word "devil" OR "adversary".
I had already pointed out above at #79 the verse where we have Jesus himself saying to Simon called Peter and SATAN:
Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling block to me.": and its variations including;
"thou art a dangerous trap to me".
"thou art a hindrance to me".
"thou art an offence unto me".
"thou art a scandal unto me".
"thou art an obstacle in my way".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
REALY! Not even your own god accepts deformity.And you say the Brother is "warped"!? You are simply denying reality. And on many, many levels, Tradesecret. And here is just one level that you have forgotten:Leviticus 21:16-2216 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.So, while your god rejects the "imperfect" you praise and thank him for them.In the first instance, this was written to the nation of Israel within a context. It was pre-Christian. Secondly, it's talking about persons who are defected coming near to offer food of his God. It also applied to priests qualifications as well.
Well, try as you may, but Jesus "was god from the first" if we are to accept the bible as fact. And the word of god states he will not have anyone with deformities anywhere near him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You see, you are doing it again. You are causing me to respond to your own conjecture, assumptions and your reams of you "speculating about", not to mention your If's but's and maybe's. And your denials.
Well you are on this thread showing on more that one occasion denying among a few other things, that Joseph of Arimathea was even a disciple of Jesus never mind a secret one. And I am not expecting you to concede a single thing. But you problem is that you simply do not now your scriptures enough no matter from which early age you claim to have memorised them from.It is true that I put to you that neither Nicodemus and Joseph were NOT disciples.
Well not quite, what you did was flat out deny that they were disciples saying that there was "no evidence or data to support it". And yet again, I had to show you; a biblical scholar and a man chosen by god, that you were wrong by having to show you the relevant BIBE verses, AGAIN!
I have never said I memorised all of the scriptures.
But you do. When you told us of your amazing ability, you didn't say I have been taught to memorise "just some of the bible but not all", did you?
Tradesecret wrote: I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year. I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek. #52
"Numerous times. and The NT twice a year"! yet didn't even know anything about these two KEY players in the life of Jesus.
I have read the bible many times - still I don't remember every bit in it. Do forget things or have others remind me of things? Yes.
You do , even when prompted in the right direction, you are still unable to recall anything .
My point above, despite the fact that I have heard it said many times by different people, was not due to a lack of knowledge, but as I have put several times - because I don't trust you.
Well it certainly is "due to your lack of knowledge". You simply didn't and don't know anything about these scriptures. And it is irrelevant whether or not you trust me. That has absolutely nothing to do with your lack of bible study or this thread.
You are determined to put the historical narrative in your own manner and according to your agenda.
I am determined to highlight all the possibilities as to the identity of the "certain" accusers. If that is what you mean by "my agenda", then you are correct.... for the first time on this whole thread.
I don't have an issue believing the bible - that is a truism. Yet this doesn't mean I accept the manner by which you interpret it.
How many times? It is not me "interpreting"anything... at all. I am simply quoting exactly as the BIBLE puts it and in its chronological order as the BIBLE says these events played out. And you are more than welcome to correct me.
I disagree with you in respect of Judas. Was he well known? Well it depends on what the writer was trying to say? Did Peter go in?
So again, you are entitled to disagree with me. I wouldn't expect anything different. And again, you are showing your blatant lack of biblical knowledge.
Well it depends on what the writer was trying to say
Are you saying the bible isn't clear on any of the points I have raised?
did Peter and Judas know each other? Of course they did. But were they hanging around on this night like you suggest? There is no data to support that. Last time Peter saw Judas was at the garden [...........] It is highly doubtful that Peter would have felt like hanging around Judas
"Doubtful", there are many things about this particular event in Jesus' life that are doubtful, but here again, it is you that are speculating, again, and having a fit and become accusative when I even put my toes into the territory of speculation.
I have maintained there is a difference between the apostles and the disciples.
Yes this will be your denials I mention. Even after I have shown you the BIBLICAL facts to the contrary. HERE>>John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus". So you are clearly contradicting what the bible itself states.
As I have maintained or at least attempted to demonstrate that there is a difference between disciples and perhaps secret disciples.
You are trying to move the goal posts.
You have clearly said that there is question of difference between disciples and apostles. HERE>> "Tradedsecret wrote: There is always the question of apostle v disciples.#68 and you go on to attempt to make your case for said difference.
You have never spoken here of there being a difference between "disciples and perhaps secret disciples." But if you had, the difference should have been obvious to you - Nicodemus and Joseph or Arimathea were secret!!!!!
But you have another entire narrative about secrets and disciples which has no basis in the bible and whenever I read the word secret in your writings - it is clear you want to push people that way.
Well for someone that calls himself - TRADE-SECRET, that is a bit rich. And how can we forget the things said and done in secret by Jesus although he denies it at his trial? AND that Jesus had SECRET disciples<<< have you forgotten that already?
You are not a teacher - you are just someone wanting to push a novel idea you read in someone's else book which has been discredited many times.
You haven't a clue what I am or am not, trade-SECRET.
Again I said - this is your narrative - let's see what you want to say.
No. It is only the biblical narrative that I am highlighting and bringing into question. And you will see what I have to say once you stop causing me to spend hours responding to your own conjecture, assumptions and your reams of you "speculating about", not to mention your if's but' and maybe's.... And your denials.
Tell me, Trade -SECRET. What do these Simons have in common, if anything?
Simon
“called” Peter.
Simon
Zealot.
Simon
the Pharisee.
Simon
the Leper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,YOUR REVEALING LINK THAT ONCE AGAIN MAKES TRADESECRET THE CONTINUED BIBLE FOOL UPON THIS RELIGION FORUM!:https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8091/post-links/355646 What did we expect, other than for Miss Tradesecret with her Bible ignorance, to remove one foot to insert the other
👍
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Brother D. wrote: Therefore, relative to Jesus' modus operandi of creating EVERYTHING, then Jesus in fact, caused incredible birth defects upon innocent babies when born!
Christians, with the Biblical FACTS shown above showing that Jesus as God created ALL THINGS, ask yourself, why does God/Jesus allow these poor babies shown in the horrific links below to be born with such severe birth defects? WHY???!!!Tradesecret wrote: -->@BrotherD.ThomasYou really don't know Christians very well at all, or unless you just have a very warped group in your background.We thank and praise God for every child born. In our view every child is perfect even if others think there are issues.
REALY! Not even your own god accepts deformity.
And you say the Brother is "warped"!? You are simply denying reality. And on many, many levels, Tradesecret. And here is just one level that you have forgotten:
Leviticus 21:16-22
16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.
So, while your god rejects the "imperfect" you praise and thank him for them.
And you say the Brother is "warped"!?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Brother D. wrote: Therefore, relative to Jesus' modus operandi of creating EVERYTHING, then Jesus in fact, caused incredible birth defects upon innocent babies when born!
Christians, with the Biblical FACTS shown above showing that Jesus as God created ALL THINGS, ask yourself, why does God/Jesus allow these poor babies shown in the horrific links below to be born with such severe birth defects? WHY???!!!Tradesecret wrote: -->@BrotherD.ThomasYou really don't know Christians very well at all, or unless you just have a very warped group in your background.We thank and praise God for every child born. In our view every child is perfect even if others think there are issues.
REALY! Not even your own god accepts deformity.
And you say the Brother is "warped"!? You are simply denying reality. And on many, many levels, Tradesecret. And here is just one level that you have forgotten:
Leviticus 21:16-22
16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.
So, while your god rejects the "imperfect" you praise and thank him for them.
And you say the Brother is "warped"!?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Again, ALL Christians have to accept the fact that we are to follow Jesus' propositions regarding our children as explicitly shown above, because who are we to not follow Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures?!
Well, it has been said that "the bible should be taken literally", Brother D. And the dilemma must be excruciating.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
So just saying I agree with them is not the same as saying I agree or will agree with your interpretation of them.But haven't interpreted them at all, have I? I have simply quoted the verses exactly as they are written in the gospels and as usual, you haven't come off the fence on whether you actually believe them at all, literally or morally or metaphorically.You had even persistently denied that Joseph of Arimathea was even a secret disciple of Jesus until I had to point it out to you that it was indeed fact! There by showing that your own bible education for what it's worth, came to zero.You are making lots of insinuations. Again I never denied them, just not going to concede to your interpretation before you put it up.
Well you are on this thread showing on more that one occasion denying among a few other things, that Joseph of Arimathea was even a disciple of Jesus never mind a secret one. And I am not expecting you to concede a single thing. But you problem is that you simply do not now your scriptures enough no matter from which early age you claim to have memorised them from.
" asking do you believe it"?
Asking you if you agree or believe anything is a genuine question. You should know that. Besides I already know that you are a believer, so I wouldn't even go there unless it was imperative to this thread. I have only ask you if or not you agree with something from which you always shy away. But as you may well also know, a no answer can speak volumes.
I think that the question of Judas is that Satan did cause him to betray Jesus. Probably, more literal than metaphorical.Then that is your own question asked and answered.>> Tradesecret wrote: Did Satan literally entered Judas?>> #74So in Judas then we have an apostle that had betrayed Jesus, stole money from the funds hence had committed an act of Satan. Or, as the bible puts it; "Satan entered Judas" and " literally" according to you.We know from the gospels that one of the two disciples that are said to have followed Jesus after his arrest "was known to the high priest".I use the word probably - not absolutely. But do we know which disciple was known to the high priest? And was there only one or two or perhaps even 11 or 12?
No we don't do we. But what we do know as fact is that of all of the twelve Judas -he that Satan entered- was known to the priesthood.
John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus, "because this disciple was known to the high priest,"It seems doubtful that Peter and Judas were hanging around each other.
Again, this is where your bible education shows a terrible lacking. Are you now honestly saying that Judas - one of Jesus ' hand picked twelve and Peter also one of Jesus' hand picked SAME twelve didn't hang around together when just a few post back you told us that " the disciples went everywhere with Jesus", when trying to force us to believe that there was a difference between the words apostle and a disciple? #68 Which incidentally was also debunked by the bible itself. Here>
>>>>.John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus.<<, Do you see that, or are you again ignoring this stone cold fact where the BIBLE verse categorically states that these two " disciples" followed Jesus to the High Priests compound?
Are you now going to deny that Simon Peter also called "Satan" didn't " hang around "with Judas the other disciple that the BIBLE also says "Satan had entered". You are scraping the barrel and doing some serious claw clutching, Tradesecret.
And we know for certain that Judas knew the chief Priests. Is this a coincidence?Do we know for certain that he knew the high priest?
Yes because the BIBLE says so. And if you had read what I wrote above you will notice that is something else from the BIBLE I had to point out to you. But do you see what you have done there with that question? Well of course you don't because it is an impossibility of yours to look at the bible in slightest critical way.
But you can put the keys to that farm you say that you own on the fact that I will be coming come back to that particular question that I am glad you asked.
And further it is said that this "other disciple " went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard". So there he is standing in front of the high priests and with Jesus standing right next to him, with Peter waiting to be let in. And he is let in, isn't he?Was Peter let in?
I could read the bible to find it -
But you do read the bible don't you. You often tell us that you read the bible in its entirety " OT once every year and the NT twice a year. I
know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek." #52
Odd then isn't it, that you know or even understand very little about these scriptures.
The other interesting thing here shows a perfect example of an "Apostle" - Peter- also being referred to as a disciple and all in the same breath. So, what was Peter also called "Satan". in this instance?I honestly have no idea what you are asking here. Peter was an apostle. he was a disciple. And Jesus had referred to him as "satan". So what?
That is because you have gone into full ignorance mode, Tradesecret. Yes Jesus called Simon Peter "SATAN" and you have attempted on more than one occasion on this thread to convince us that there is a difference between disciple and an apostle. You only now agree that they are one and the same thing but only after I again showed you that the BIBLE shows that there is no other difference at all accept for status of rank. They are still ALL disciples.
This is your story - and so far you have added nothing that is not known to most people. You have suggested things - but not actually said what it is that you want to say.
I intend to.
But now and again I have to pause the narrative because you are causing me to respond to your own conjecture, assumptions and your reams of you "speculating about", which is something you have outdone me by at least 10 to 1.
conspiracy theory
Indeed, ironic isn't it? An assumed (by you) conspiracy theorist questioning the biggest conspiracy theory in all of Christendom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
So just saying I agree with them is not the same as saying I agree or will agree with your interpretation of them.
But haven't interpreted them at all, have I? I have simply quoted the verses exactly as they are written in the gospels and as usual, you haven't come off the fence on whether you actually believe them at all, literally or morally. You had even persistently denied that Joseph of Arimathea was even a secret disciple of Jesus until I had to point it out to you that it was indeed fact! There by showing that your own bible education for what it's worth, came to zero.
I think that the question of Judas is that Satan did cause him to betray Jesus. Probably, more literal than metaphorical.
Then that is your own question asked and answered.>> Tradesecret wrote: Did Satan literally entered Judas?>> #74
So in Judas then we have an apostle that had betrayed Jesus, stole money from the funds hence had committed an act of Satan. Or, as the bible puts it; "Satan entered Judas" and " literally" according to you.
We know from the gospels that one of the two disciples that are said to have followed Jesus after his arrest "was known to the high priest".
John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus, "because this disciple was known to the high priest,"
And we know for certain that Judas knew the chief Priests. Is this a coincidence? And further it is said that this "other disciple " went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard". So there he is standing in front of the high priests and with Jesus standing right next to him, with Peter waiting to be let in. And he is let in, isn't he?
The other interesting thing here shows a perfect example of an "Apostle" - Peter- also being referred to as a disciple and all in the same breath. So, what was Peter also called "Satan". in this instance?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You mentioned Judas Iscariot earlier (he that Satan had entered,Luke 22:3 &John 13:27 ) and I mentioned Simon called Peter ( he that Jesus himself called "Satan" and his "stumbling block"Matthew 16:23). Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?I don't know what your point is.I have simply asked you a question _Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?I am not sure whether I agree with them or not....is relevant#75So are you suggesting that the gospel writers are being disingenuous and/or ambiguous?I am not saying I am unsure of whether I agree with the passages in the scripture. I am saying - I don't see how what I think about them is relevant.
So although you agree that the bible verses are actually bible verses, you refuse to commit yourself and say weather or not you believe them or if you recognise their import. Ok.
Ok. So will show why I believe them to be relevant to me and this thread. Let's look at them one by one dealing with Judas first..
Luke22 1:6 JKV1Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.6 And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.
So there is no misunderstand here that Judas had planned and finally did betray Jesus, is there? The gospel writers describe the cause this as betrayal as "Satan entering Judas" don't they? And I am sure the gospel writers of the day had their reasons for describing the actions of Judas in this fashion, maybe it was simply a metaphor of the day for anyone that did wrong or sinful. Indeed, you ask yourself :Did Satan literally entered Judas?#74 But there is no getting away from the biblical fact that Judas had committed an act of Satan. And not the first time was it? He used to steal money from the funds didn't he?John 12:6. One could go as far as to call him a right little money grabbing Devil.
And John tells a similar story adding:
John 13:20-27, And after the sop Satan entered into him [Judas]. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
So both these gospel writers are clearly laying the blame for the actions of Judas at Satan's door either using metaphor or the verses are to be taken literally? So again there is no getting away from the biblical fact that Judas had committed an act of Satan.
Now let's look at Simon called Peter.
This is astonishing by the fact that there is no misunderstanding about who is being called what directly by who, is there.
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling block
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
to me: for thou savours not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Are the gospel writers again using metaphor or are we to take it that Simon called Peter is literally being called "Satan" by the lord himself and had actually believed him to be Satan?
This is an interesting verse because in many of the bibles written in English the words- stumbling block change considerably:
Example;
You are
a dangerous trap to me.
a hindrance to me.
an offence unto me.
a scandal unto me.
an obstacle in my way.
So the title Satan is being directly linked to both of these disciples also known by Jesus as his chosen "Apostles" and none of the other there disciples are.
This is your story. It is not mine. I doubt it is the gospel writers either.
They are all verses in context from Scripture, tradesecret. Unless you are denying they are?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am not sure whether I agree with them or not....is relevant.
Ok you are not sure if or not you agree with what is actually written in scripture, I can understand that. Relevance is in in the eye of the beholder.
So are you suggesting that the gospel writers are being disingenuous and/or ambiguous?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You mentioned Judas Iscariot earlier (he that Satan had entered,Luke 22:3 &John 13:27 ) and I mentioned Simon called Peter ( he that Jesus himself called "Satan" and his "stumbling block"Matthew 16:23). Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?I don't know what your point is.I have simply asked you a question _Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?I see that these are parts of verses within the bible. I am not sure whether I agree with them or not....
Yes indeed they are in the bible, aren't they. In fact, they are in every bible that we know of written in English, aren't they?
I am not sure whether I agree with them or not....
So are you suggesting that the gospel writers are being disingenuous and/or ambiguous?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Is there any mention of a wedding between these two Joesph and Mary, Brother D.?
What about the dowery -bride price - Jew men paid for their wives? Is there any mention of that at all, in scripture, Brother D.?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
JESUS IS A BASTARD!When Jesus is God as shown within the Bible, then in the virgin birth scenario, Jesus spiritually “celestially impregnated” his own mother Mary through godly incest. When Jesus did this act, He not only became Mary’s son, but his own Father as being Yahweh/God incarnate, and a bastard child through true Hebrew tradition as being a mazer because Joseph was not the paternal father. :(
👍
Conceived out of wedlock, should say it all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Shila, who tries in vain to rewrite the Bible to the way she wants it to be.
👍
They all are prone to that bad and desperate habit, Brother D. It seems that it is a default of theirs once they have painted themselves into a corner and their arguments are failing miserably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You mentioned Judas Iscariot earlier (he that Satan had entered,Luke 22:3 &John 13:27 ) and I mentioned Simon called Peter ( he that Jesus himself called "Satan" and his "stumbling block"Matthew 16:23). Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?I don't know what your point is.
I have simply asked you a question _Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
We do know that Nicodemus spoke up for Jesus and had also helped Joseph of Arimathea place Jesus in the Tomb after the crucifixion indicating that Nicodemus' relationship with Jesus is more than the "one off " meeting that you suggest.I was not intending to convey the idea that there was only a once off meeting per se.
Of
course you are. You are simply attempting to play down the close
relationship Nicodemus had with Jesus as if it just a flash in the
pan.. And still refusing to say if or not he was a disciple.
We
know he met in secret with Jesus, we know he spoke up for Jesus and
we know he afforded large and costly amounts of myrrh
and aloes to
anoint Jesus and we know he assisted Joseph of Arimathea with the
entombment of Jesus.
Remember it is you who is speculating that he was a secret disciple.
I
agree to speculating as you have also done on this thread. But I can
assure you that you will be extremely hard pressed to find a
biblical scholar that would deny that Nicodemus was a secret disciple
of Jesus. But have it you way.
I do not think we can so sure that by the time of the trial of Jesus that either were disciples of Jesus.
Ok.
So if neither of these men were not disciples of Jesus why all the
loving care of the funeral arrangements. Why did one ask for the body, and another bother spending a very large amount of money on someone
that meant nothing to them? And why did one allow his own private tomb to be used for the burial, if they were not once disciples? Why did one even bother to speak up for a fair trial on Jesus' behalf ? In fact why even bother with this man Jesus at all, if they were not disciples of Jesus. Your reasoning makes no sense at all if the bible is to be believed.
I do not think we can so sure that by the time of the trial of Jesus that either were disciples of Jesus.I have shown you clearly why this could not have been the case.There is always the question of apostle v disciples.
Yes, I thought you would play semantics with this point. So what is a disciple? It is a dedicated follower, <<<this is a fact. I agree the word often in scripture does become interchangeable. There is no denying that 12 disciples were set apart from the many others and designated Apostles (to be sent). But is not an Apostle also a follower of Jesus? In fact, of all his disciples there are three in particular that followed almost everywhere, and Simon called Peter it seems hardly ever left his side.
In John for instance apostle is typically replaced with disciple. I have no doubt in my mind that they were associates of Jesus. That they met with him and even were instructed in various ways. This doesn't make them a disciple...............................So unless you can find a place in the NT which specifically labels them disciples - I would not concede the point
"And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus but secretly for fear of the Jews", John 19:38KJV.
So once again, you have shown yourself to be lacking in bible scripture.
I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin.
Well unless secret doesn't mean secret then you are wrong.
I also think that their relationship with Jesus was known amongst the Sanhedrin. this is one of the reason -But it is not a reason, is it? It is nothing more than a desperate speculation on your part and what you only "think" whereas everything else points to the contrary.You are arguing the opposite case with no data - and you think I am desperate? I disagree with you - that everything else points to the contrary.
And you have not managed to debunk or dispute anything I have said so far. You have done nothing here but offer extremely lame reasons why I AM wrong, here> because one was sick- the others wife was having baby, while they were both taking a holiday. #58
There is no data calling them disciples. There is no data that they were private or secret disciples.
Then you must have missed this on purpose.
"And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus but secretly for fear of the Jews", John 19:38KJV.
I think that they were not invited to some of the more dubious meetings - and perhaps illegal meetings.And you would have been wrong, because the bible says you are wrong.On the contrary, I think it would have been in the interests of the writers of the gospels to know whether there were supporters at these meetings and who they might have been.
I never used or mentioned any such word as "supporters" on this thread. I have said continually - disciples.
And you are really a glutton for punishment.
"And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes". Mark 14:53
I can only suspect that you are now going to deny that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were even members of the Sanhedrin.
I certainly maintain as before that I don't recall either of them being in these kangaroo courts.And I can maintain with some confidence that they had to have been there.Only if you take the view that your speculation is somehow worth more than data and evidence. You have no evidence that they were there. You have speculation. And really only stuff you have read in a little book somewhere.
You must have missed this>>."And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes". Mark 14:53
I don't recall saying that the kangaroo court was not dealing with a capital crime.So then the trial did concern a capital crime?the trial was about finding something to get Jesus before the Roman governor.
I agree. But that is irrelevant to this thread. So we don't need to be visiting that point again.
>>Are you suggesting that two disciples of Jesus were not in the court encloser where the "kangaroo court" was taking place where one is named and the other not named?I don't know who was in the trial with Jesus except those who are named either with names or as witnesses.
Ok. We can return to that point again later. Although I have shown you that at least two names had to have been there even if they did have "sick wives having babies while on holiday". #58
You mentioned Judas Iscariot earlier (he that Satan had entered,Luke 22:3 &John 13:27 ) and I mentioned Simon called Peter ( he that Jesus himself called "Satan" and his "stumbling block"Matthew 16:23). Do you agree with these biblical verses? Or are you going to flat out deny they are from the bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
“The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for their children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered oh Lord. what should I request for your people? I will ask for the wombs that don’t give birth and breast that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children. (Hosea 9:11-16)
Indeed Brother D. This "historical Jesus " certainly worked in violent ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I believe " a " historical jesus lived. But at no way could he of been " diffrent " then you or i.
Only that he may have had a legitimate claim to the throne of David. Which although this throne had been promised him via his mother by god himself, he never got in sniffing distance of its seat. But yes, a man like you and I.
But at no point in no timeNo one can do magic shit.No one comes back to life.FULL STOP.
Yep. Spot on Deb.
Then id like to go on and to have it a guess. i think of jesus as a " gambit " of sorts.A good front man.I feel he was tricked into believing he was diff.
That is a great possibility, Deb, and something I have suggested often
Its only commen sense a god thing doesn't exist.
Indeed, and simply believing in such, is not enough to make it true.
Great post Deb. 👍
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
--> @BrotherD.ThomasYes Brother D. Every verse you have posted from the bible proves the misogynistic nature of what is known as Christianity. And although they may not be practiced and adhered to by Christians today, they cannot be defended against either. And what's more; if they are not practiced and adhered to by Christians today, then it must be the fires of hell for those that defy the teaching of their lord god Jesus.What a dilemma for you Christians.Stephen, you have a dilemma too, because you have been bible slapped by BrotherD.Here is the link and post of your first Bible slapping.
Do you remember this exchange above that we had way back in 2019, Brother D. And reproduced here by shila in his cross-thread contamination post above?
I believe it finished in some sort of stalemate. That will depend on the reader to decide should they be interested at all, of course.
By the way, isn't intentional cross-thread contamination against the CoC rules Brother D? Maybe you can look for me when you have the time.
And isn't shila already on a warning?
Created: