Timid8967

It is an intriguing thought though - why would David have been thinking about Roman Crosses - when the Romans were not in power then - and the crucifix had not been invented.

Why does Psalm 22 make you think the author was thinking about crosses? Just because it says "they pierced my hands and my feet"?

This part of the passage in particular is pretty murky, translation-wise. Apparently, if you translate it literally from Hebrew into English, it comes out like:

• "Like a lion my hands and feet."
  

This doesn't make much sense as-is, so it's been translated various ways:

• Early Rabbinical paraphrases were something like, "They bite my hands and feet like a lion."
  
• The Septuagint translated it as, "They dug my hands and my feet."
  
• The JPS Tanakh has it as, "Like a lion they are at my hands and feet."
  
• And the NRSV, the version most biblical scholars use, translates it, for some reason, as "My hands and my feet have shriveled." While leaving the footnote: "Textually obscure; Meaning of Heb uncertain."
  

So, taking this and the entire verse into account, I'm just getting the image of a man being encircled by attackers who assault his hands and feet "like a lion" as they menace him.

This definitely doesn't put me in mind of crosses or crucifixion.

That is why you sound like a victim. Poor little Stephen.  No one can touch me. 

 I have said twice now, that  I don't feel victimised at all. I am just fine and happy here in my own skin watching your arguments disintegrate. 

PGA2.0 did not say that Jesus returned physically.  That is you reading your own interpretation into his words. 

 Nope. And I don't believe that I said that he did say that.  I am sure he made it clear that it was in the spiritual sense that Jesus had already retuned. You really need to read ALL  of this thread before you start throwing accusations around. You are making yourself look  stupid not to mention desperate. And I haven't said either way.  NO, what I have said is that  Jesus didn't die only to return in any shape or form at a later time.

Yes, I know your response will be - but millions of churches do. So what?   

I agree, so what? Are they wrong?  And my overall response has been consistent throughout this thread,  that is,  I don't accept his opinion that the dead and stinking rotten corpse of Jesus came back to life from being dead, physically shared a meal with friends, had his physical wounds physically  touched and inspected, then ascended in "heaven",  and came back down again some 40 years later to be present at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 66-70. Ghost or not!

Timid8967, wrote:  More easily agreeable with the bible#25

I love how you continue to quote this as though it means more to you than it does to me. 

 YOUR quote , not mine.#25. It meant a lot the first time you said it and the more your spout your shite the more it means to me.  And here is why.  I just can't understand why you would "wish" what I have to say would  be "more agreeable with the bible", especially in the face of  you making it more than clear that you do not even believe the bible.#18  So I agree, it means more to me, that it would you. But I think it bothers you that I throw it at you often as a reminder? get used to it , Princess, I do that a lot. 

I have never said that I don't believe the bible, YOU said that you don't sunshine. I said I do, and I also said I don't care what it is you do or don't believe.

It was YOU  that said  that " you wish that I would be More easily agreeable with the bible". Why?  What business is it of yours.? What difference would that make to YOUR belief? This is why It means something to me. 

 Take Mark 13 for instance. You use it to say that Jesus lied - yet when challenged on it - you go boo hoo stop being stupid.  I never said that.

Remind me? Or is this yet another case of  you confusing what I say with what I say the gospels actually state. And I don't think someone such as you could ever cause me to "boo hoo", princess.  Although,  I have seen a few Pastors and Priests buckle and "boo hoo" and go awaol when they have been shown to be absolutely thick as shite  dunces and bible ignorant when it comes to the subject they should know better than I.

Indeed , there was one Pastor and Chaplain here recently that seems to have left the forum altogether, No reason given, but I can only guess that it was because his bible ignorance was exposed often and on a regular basis.

- rather than your imaginary made up stuff which might fire up a few atheists but only those who did not have a brain. 

 Imaginary , yes to an extent I agree.  And I don't think that my "imaginary made up stuff" would be enough to "fire up" anyone...... except you it seems. Strange that is.

As I said, you make me embarrassed to be non-theist.

 No. I think you can embarrass yourself without my help, Princess. In fact you have done so a few times already;  getting all fired up because I have spoken my beliefs, that I admit I cannot support and only have coincidental evidence for. And saying things that don't agree with you and your new found buddy. No, any  embarrassment is all your own baby, so you rock it.  And here another one of my imaginings, I think it is a great possibility that Jesus had somehow had a hand in the death of John the Baptist.. but I cannot prove or get the pieces to fall into place? 

Not enough to become a theist. But enough to find you a charlatan and a fraud with your own agenda.

You are entitled to your opinion of me , but it is all irrelevant, isn't it.  Your low opinion of me doesn't make those unreliable ambiguous half stories that make up scripture any more true, do they?

 I can't wait to see the next edition of BS that comes from your threads.

Then wait no longer. Your wait is over. Hot off the press just yesterday afternoon  >>https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6056-and-a-great-power-was-given-to-him-why  You will notice, that it is another question based thread with questions to it. But you would be wasting your time even looking at it as you have told us that you have only read the bible once and don't believe it anyway, haven't you?    But have a go.   You never known, you might just put on your Pastors hat and give it a go, or your Chaplains hat. I'm easy.

If only you were original. Barbara Thearing or whatever her name is seems to have read your posts.

WHAT A COINICIDENCE!!!!!  . I mentioned this author to the bible ignorant Pastor and Chaplain here calling himself Tradesecret., as he is Australian too!!!  Well,so he told us.

Yes I have read some of the work of the Australian historian, theologian, and Biblical exegete specialising in the origins of the early Christian Church. Fascinating stuff, I found. But believable ? I don't know. I still have some of her work knocking around somewhere.  She is qualified to speak on such matter, though, just like the Pastor and Chaplain Tradesecret that I mentioned above,  he too was qualified to "minister " and "lecture" on matters biblical. But it turned out that he knew absolutely fk all about his subject. But got paid all the same. That is fraudulent , if your were ever to you ask me.

She is as daft as most of the fundamentalists in her blind faith to prove she is correct.  

Well each to their own I say.

We all have a different way of looking at these scriptures and other theological literature. Take yourself, you read it and simply don't believe the bible and dismissed it.And fair play I say at least you gave it a go...   pga2.0 read it and it has caused him to believe it in a different way to others ..  Where - as I believe it but not in the way it has come down to us and has been preached, taught and " tutored" on for millennia. 

More easily agreeable with the bible

I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense.#141

Timid8967

   I see, and what is it that causes you say that  it "makes little sense" ?

For some people everything amounts to a GOD, whereas for most, GOD is just for Sunday mornings.

Where was he?

Jesus said said to his followers that some of them would live to witness his return to earth:“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”. Matthew16: 27-28.

Hi Stephen,  I have read that verse and re-read that verse and yet I still don't see where it states that Jesus is returning physically.  

But  billions do. This is my point about how one religious faction reads these unreliable and ambiguous scriptures compared to another. Even Preterist can't get their act together. and agree on a date of this return - physical or not

But  it Interesting that you tell us all that you have only read the bible once and "don't believe it".#18

Maybe that has something to do with your own bible ignorance? 

You haven't attempted to answer these questions raised by your own comments. I have asked you three times now. Why are you ignoring them.?

I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense.

   I see, and what is it that causes you say that  it "makes little sense" ?

No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement.

And what "weirdness" would that be?

thang5, the runaway from biblical axioms about Jesus' true MO, and is on record as stating that Jesus is not the Father which is priceless Bible stupidity, and has now committed the dreadful Unpardonable Sin 3 times,

Within your post #3, and as if you don't have enough embarrassment upon you in not being able to address my posts of the true MO of Jesus, but to only RUN AWAY from them, you proffer passages that totally contradict Stephens passages in his initial post relative to the no-show status of Jesus on His alleged 2nd coming!  Therefore, you once again are proving that the Bible contradicts itself!  

How is one to surmise in which scenario is correct, yours or Stephens, because both contradicting concepts cannot be true at the same time, get it Bible fool?  

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold")[1] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons:[2][3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.[5]

Where was he?

Jesus said said to his followers that some of them would live to witness his return to earth:“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”. Matthew16: 27-28.

Jesus then goes further telling them which “signs” to look out for but this time including the whole “generation” and ending again with:

“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened “Matthew24:25-34.

Mark13:26-30 says the same as does Luke21:27-32.

So it is clearly Jesus himself states that he will be seen again in that generation of that time and that it was to happen some time during the generation of those to whom he was speaking. It cannot be made more clear to his audience that this event would not be in the distant future, he told them that some of them who were there listening to him would still be alive to see it.

Even at his trial he told the priests and the council :“you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.“” Matthew26: 63, 64.     And the no show hadn’t gone nu-noticed by the people either:

2Peter 3:4 “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

Yet even allowing for all those Jews alive at the time of the promise and living another hundred + years, Jesus simply failed to show and keep his promise.

Does a single one of those he made the promise to mention his return "coming on a cloud"? It will be interesting to hear what Christians have to say about this abysmal damp squib of a failure to keep a promise, his promise.

Trade was/is a highly conditioned Christian theist.....

I think a research paper titled:  DID JESUS RETURN IN 70 AD?  by Stafford North, Oklahoma Christian Univerity of Science and Arts

supports  Stephen's points. In it North says,

We have studied passages that speak clearly of the second coming and of events

which shall accompany that coming. We have one of three choices in interpreting

these passages: (1) that the events which are said to accompany the second

coming literally took place in 70 A.D. but we have no record of it; (2) that since

these events did not take place in 70 A.D. (or since) that we are to continue to

look for Jesus’ coming when they will take place, or (3) that there is a figurative

meaning hidden in these passages about the end of the Jewish law and the

beginning of the Christian system. We clearly reject option one because had such

spectacular events have taken place, we certainly would have some record of it.

Option three is the view of those believing Jesus returned in 70 A.D., but to hold

this view they must allegorize these passages when there is no justification for

doing so. The context and language describes real events which are to be

expected to occur.

And Trades intentions, were as ever, underwritten by conditioned theism.

 Stephen on the other hand is one of the most dogmatic people I have come across.  He refuses to see that other people see things different to him

 Well that just has to be your lamest attempt at debunking anything I have said. "Dogmatic" ? It is not me that presents theories as fact or fairy tales  come to that.

I have admitted many times and will again, that I cannot prove my theories or beliefs and never once have I presented them as fact as do ALL theist when it comes to these scriptures. And I am not the one that has been pressing home and "foisting"  and forcing  the point that these scriptures are true and factual onto mankind for over 2000 years either!!.  So get real ffs!

I have simply suggested that there is another side to the Jesus story in particular. That is something the theist " refuses to see".  PGA2.0 sees in the scriptures  that Jesus returned in AD 66 - 70 and present in Jerusalem at its fall.  I too see Jesus in Jerusalem in AD66 -70, but with a slight difference, I believe he survived the cross and hadn't died at all .

He refuses to see that other people see things different to him

It is the theist that won't even consider seeing things may not be as rosy beneath the surface as they are above; that are dogmatic and stubborn, this is not to mention that they are outrageously ignorant of their own book.

Simply look at PGA2.0 above; claiming that Jesus fulfilled all the Old Testament promises and prophesies. This is an out and out lie. for one ; has the temple been rebuilt as promised, NO!     But PGA2.0 will have you believe it has  but in the fkn sky, but cannot prove it? CAN YOU!?  And you have the brass bollocks to call me "dogmatic".  Away with your nonsense.

I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense.

 I see, and what is it that causes you say that  it "makes little sense" ?

  No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement.

And what "weirdness" would that be?

Is it that Pretersist can't even get their own house in order on what it is that they are supposed to be believing?  Yes that is fkn weird, isn't it? 

The scriptures state clearly " "every eye will see him," .   So did you see him return on a cloud in all high glory in AD 66-70? 

 Can you produce a single historical written eye witness that attests to seeing him return on a cloud in AD 66 -70? 

PGA2.0 tried to tell me that the Jewish  historian Josephus witnessed it all, until l  showed him to be a liar.. but you have not  taken the time to read this thread have you , Princess?  You have said words to the effect that  PGA2.0's posts are too long for you to bother to read them. 

 I have also shown that for every biblical verse PGA2.0 produces in defence of his Preterist claim that "Jesus had already returned in AD 66-70"  that there are just as many, if not more biblical verses, being produced by Christian theist that in their defence shows and proves Jesus has not returned but that  his return is imminent.      Are they wrong?

 

 But what else is it you that said?  Yes here we are:

 I don't believe the bible. #18  Timid8967

So you don't believe the bible but are accepting all of these biblical verses as proof and evidence that PGA2.0 produces to prove his claim.    Your a fkn fraud.

 And don't think I was stupid enough to fall  for this bullshit of yours:....

#141

Thanks Stephen, it is nice to see some people attempting to provide good material to consider.  

...Or this old flannel...

Thank you Stephen I appreciate your posts. #12

....because I didn't and I haven't

I'm not familiar with the idealistic view and I have been meaning to read Beale. To my understanding, it deals with Revelation. I can't see that position fitting with Revelation. Do you understand Revelation? What is your take on it? Do you see it as a judgment on Old Covenant Israel? Do you understand the references to 1st-century history in its allegory and figurative language? You see, the language is very specific once you understand it. That brings me to another point, have you read the OT, or for that matter, the entire Bible? How many times, if yes? Do you understand the main themes? I have read some millennial authors, but only one in-depth on the subject of eschatology - that was Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times: Kim Riddlebarger: 9780801064357: Amazon.com: Books. I think that view is flawed. 

Thanks PGA2.0.  I don't actually hold a view - I don't have too since I am not a believer and since it is sort of irrelevant.  Me, I just like intellectual honesty. And I like people attempting to find ways to discuss differences without getting all tetchy. 

I'm sure you believe that you hold no view, but I find it hard to be neutral. Unbelievers hold views too. Neutrality is a myth. I do not believe you are neutral on the subject matter. Surely you would know that after reading Bahnsen on Van Til? Perhaps an explanation is that you don't know how much your current worldview influences your state of being. Since you have read more on Preterism and partial Preterism plus all futuristic views of eschatology than anyone I have encountered on these forums, perhaps you are suppressing your view or do not want it to be true.

If my view is true, and I invite you to critique it, it does affect what you believe since our views conflict with each other. That logically means we both cannot be right. I believe speaking with someone who knows something about the subject will showcase the subject more effectively. 

Thanks for posting on this  particular thread. It is the correct thread to post it on. I cannot figure out why Stephen would want you to post elsewhere.  It is directly on point.  His topic is eschatological. Your point is eschatological. Surely he does not think he owns the thread and can determine what is eschatological and what is not?  After reading your posts - well parts of them - you make much more sense to me  than Stephen does. At least you attempt to connect the dots. Even if I don't agree with you.  Which I don't. 

Thank you for your support on this point. I wondered if anyone was critical enough in their thinking to recognize that Preterism concerns itself with Jesus' coming as past and as a reasonable explanation. I don't think there is a more reasonable explanation.  

IMO, I think he does believe he owns the thread and can discern what is and is not eschatological when in fact, he doesn't have a clue. His worldview bias clouds his thinking.

 The part of your last paragraph that intrigues me is that you know enough about Preterism to discuss it, yet you disagree with me. Please reveal why you think partial Preterism is more credible in your opinion. And one more point, do you think Preterism is more credible than all those futuristic views you cited earlier? Dispensationalism is the view that I believe has taken hold in America today and the view that dominates so much of the thinking of secularists and church members today on eschatology.

 PGA2.0 has very ably done so - and you have embarrassed us all. 

 More opinion. No substance.

If you feel embarrassed that maybe down to the fact that you are out of your depth concerning the subject matter.

But he explained it

 No he gave an opinion without proof.

 I am not going to argue with you what he has or hasn't done.  If you believe him and his version of events then just come right out and say so instead of sitting on the fence and  trying to stir shit from the sidelines because you have no fkn argument of your own.

You are  beginning to come across like an old wanker braindead member of  DebateArt  who used to speak loud on behalf of others  simply because he lacked a brain of his own to argue his own corner.  

 I am saying he has no proof.. not a single written eyewitness account  of a dead man returning on a cloud accompanied by all these other disasters predicted by Peter  in 66 -70 AD. DO YOU!? 

So unless you can support his BS  you have no argument. 

So when you are ready.  Off you go.

That is exactly why he should post it here.  PGA2.0 has soundly refuted your premise.

 And that is you opinion. The scriptures themselves tell us very clearly that Jesus failed to return when he promised he would. 

My thread is not a place for discussing his own religious  differences. 

It is not highjacking the discussion or moving it elsewhere.

 That is exactly what you are encouraging him to do. And I suggest you cease

There is nothing stopping him starting his own thread on his own  given choice of belief system . I am asking you and him not to do it on this thread, my thread. 

You say Jesus failed to return. 

 No, the scriptures say Jesus failed to return. Why are you so mixed up and confused about what I say and what I say the bible ACTUALLY says.

PGA2.0 argues Jesus did return.

I know what he is arguing.  But he has yet to prove it. So far he has produced nothing to show  that the dead and stinking rotting  corpse of Jesus was raised from  being dead to being alive again, had shared a meal with friends, ascended into heaven, came down again sometime between ascending  up into the heavens and reappearing on a cloud to be present at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 66 - 70. And neither have you. 

he is arguing from the NT and is doing so ably. 

Opinion. I think entirely the opposite.

 PGA2.0 has provided a well substantiated and if you had bothered to look, a well supported opinion, by a significant part of Christianity. 

 More opinion. I have simply quoted what the NT has to say on the matter of Jesus' no show. your boy believes that Peter explained this no show by saying to  the local illiterate and superstitious folk that they had forgotten that "to the lord a day was but a thousand years".  And believes that wraps it all up and explained away the no show.

HERE see for yourself>>  "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" .2 Peter 3:8  

Odd it is that when the promise was made that Jesus forgot to mention this himself.   So how can they forget if they weren't told in the first fkn place?

 And if is the case then 1000 years after the crucifixion would not put us in AD 66-70, would it?  So you can explain that shite for him too if you like.

 Yet it does not give you a right or an entitlement to ask him to leave the thread. 

 I haven't ask him to leave. I have asked many times to start his own thread on the preterism and the belief that a dead man returned to life, went to live with his father in heaven and then came down again to be present at the fall of Jerusalem AD 66_70. so far he has failed to do so.

 If you want to argue on his behalf I am sure he would appreciate your assistance as he is doing a miserable job and has shown himself to be failing miserably to prove his case that Jesu has already returned.

If it was me I would attempt to tackle him from another angel.

 Then do so. But it is just that it is not you is it sunshine?  It is me and I am "tackling him" in my own style, which is usually via the unreliable and ambiguous scriptures themselves. 

Not try to push him away because he is not agreeing with me.  

 I haven't pushed him away. I have challenged all of his repeated and regurgitated BS.  I have asked him to start his  own thread concerning his religions believe that the Christ has already returned.

I am still waiting for his explanation as to why all those other predictions by the traitor and three times denier of Christ Peter didn't happen. 

Was the "earth laid bare" when  you say Jesus returned AD 66 - 70 ? NO. Did "the heavens disappear"AD 66 - 70? NO.   Were "all the earths elements been destroyed by fire"AD 66 - 70?  NO.   But didn't the traitor and liar and three times denier of Jesus also  tell us all these things would also happen when Jesus returned.  Of course he did , here we are:

 Did those things also happen when Jesus returned "on a cloud" in AD 66-70?  If they did not a single historian of the time mentioned it. Not a single written eyewitness account of a return or these disasters that were to accompany the promised return of the Christ "coming on  on a cloud".

 So, when you are readyTimid8967, you can start by showing us the evidence that all those things occurred all  at the same time in AD 66_70, seeing that you are keen to speak on behalf of  others.

Off you go.

I support the believe women movement because all genders (men and women) are significantly more likely to be raped than they are to be falsely accused of rape.

FactCheck: Men are more likely to be raped than be falsely accused of rape – Channel 4 News states the following about the subject:

But from what we can tell: yes, men are more likely to be raped than be falsely accused of rape.

According to the most reliable data we have, the average adult man in England and Wales aged 16 to 59 has a 0.03 per cent chance of being raped over the course of a year (based on 2016-17 figures).

The best data we have — the number of people prosecuted for making false allegations — suggests that the average adult man in England and Wales has a 0.00021281 per cent chance of being falsely accused of rape in a year. (That’s based on 35 prosecutions for false rape allegations in 2011 compared to 16.5 million men aged 16 to 59 living in England and Wales at the time).

By this measure, a man is 230 times more likely to be raped than to be falsely accused of rape.

And many conservatives don't support believe women out of the fear that some are innocent.  However, most conservatives also support the death penalty even though there is a chance that some convicts are innocent.  I am willing to take a little bit of risk to secure justice.

PGA2.0 can you tell me - more about the difference between full and partial preterist?

 But I   suggest you  do so on another thread. This one is about Jesus failing to show after promising to return before some of those witnessing the promise had passed away..

I am somewhat familiar with these as  my brother was a big fan of some of the authors.  Chilton has a really good book on economics.  I don't have an opinion one way or the other - as it really makes not a lot of difference to me what the bible teaches.  I like to study people though and understand their arguments. 

Then have you read Greg Bahnsen on Corenius Van Til? It is a study of worldviews and what makes them tick. 

I have to say I don't come across to many full preterists though.  Are there many of you and where would you fit in a denomination for instance? Would you also subscribe to FV? 

FV? Quite a lot, but mainly in the States. I'm Canadian. 

I like the work of David Curtis and Don K. Preston. The Preterist Archive is a precious source of information. 

And try not to have such large posts.  I read the parts I am interested in - but not everything you write.  Remember - currently I am a non-theist and I don't have to subscribe to a particular eschatological position.  

Can you tell me - more about the difference between full and partial preterist? 

Condensed version, Full Preterists, believe all biblical prophecy is fulfilled by AD 70. Partial Preterists believe some prophecy is still to be fulfilled, including the final judgment of Revelation.

0

Ok. But where did you refer to "righteousness"?  Look it does not matter anyway.  That was the answer Jesus gave and which persuaded John.  

 And I am not convinced. And the question still remains of  why did even John believe that it was he that should be being anointed by Jesus in the first place. .

 Presently, there are far too many gaps in your position and it looks like to me anyway 

 There are far too many gaps in the whole scriptures to make any sense of them as they stand and as they are taught. 

This is my point.  So for you to speculate and infer that it must be how you understand it is where I start to roll my eyes. 

Roll away. This is what the scriptures lead me to believe. I haven't foisted anything on anyone and that includes you.. You came to this thread , I didn't drag you here kicking and screaming.

I am quite happy for you to have any view you like -

 Oh well now that is fkn generous of you. Should I thank you too?

just don't foist it as though you are correct and everyone else is wrong. 

"Foist"?  . Don't make me laugh. If anything has been foisted on anyone it is these unreliable and ambiguous scriptures  that have been foisted and forced onto mankind for millennia  by Pastors and Priests and it still is to a lesser extent. And who have I accused of being wrong, YOU?  I personally can't remember a single time when I have told anyone that they are wrong in their own beliefs.

 Nope. At his trial  he denied doing and saying anything in secret when the scriptures clearly state that he did.  Such as here ..John 7:10

Ok. Well that string is stretching again. 

Well that is only your opinion, but quoting scripture directly is not stretching string or anything else. Jesus denied speaking in secret when THE BIBLE say he did. Jesus denied doing anything in secret, when THE BIBLE says he did.  

But Jesus did not deny he was running a secret group.  His doctrines were transparent and open.

Nope. The bible states  that he taught Nicodemus "the mysteries"  in secret. And there is this >>He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." Matthew 13:11 

 I just don't like being told what to believe by you or anyone. 

 I haven't done that.. I am not asking or demanding that you believe anything I say. . Just leave the thread if you believe that is what I am doing or have done and then I won't be telling you OR ANYONE ELSE "what to believe " will I?  

I am not denying anything. I agreed that they met in secret with Jesus away from the Romans and the Jewish leaders.   

Then why accuse me of string stretching? make your mind up?

You are string stretching.  You have not joined the dots. You admit to as such above.  Me, agreeing that two guys met secretly with Jesus does not equate with Jesus having secret disciples - such that none of his other disciples did not know. 

Opinion.  I happen to believe that it does.  And I have said, he didn't only have the inner 12, the bible AGAIN records that he had many more. 

It is highly unlikely based on any of the passages you have used to demonstrate the disciples did not know Joseph or Nicodemus. 

Why?  We see only those two secret disciples apart and together . We don't read of them having any type of engagement with any one else apart from Jesus. And when I speak of disciples  it doesn't automatically follow that I speak only of his inner circle of 12.  And again, from the BIBLE we can se that Jesus at least  his doubts about Simon Peter  going so far as to call him "satan". 

Why are you so dogmatic about your position? Whatever is it that makes you - an atheist - content to spend so many hours on a religious forum pushing an alternative narrative about the bible?

Why should it even concern you what I do with MY OWN time.  Leave the thread if your not happy. Just go, I won't miss you.

except when you are so dogmatic

I don't believe I am. Most of my threads are all question based. I ask for answers and question what comes back if I am not happy. 

I just wish it would be clearer. More defined. More easily agreeable with the bible.  

 Well that is my point , I don't agree with the bible as it has come down and been taught to us. I have my opinions that the scriptures/ gospel authors are hiding a bigger story. I can't ever hope to prove anything, but it won't stop me putting what I consider what could be an alternative story to the one that we have had "FOISTED" onto us for millennia.... minus the so called "miracles".   But like I have said, you can always leave MY thread sunshine. I'm easy.

More easily agreeable with the bible.

 And why would you want my side to be "agreeable with the bible"?  Haven't you repeatedly made it clear on this thread and many others that you don't believe the bible and are nontheist.   Don't bother answering, I don't care.

 I just asked why you omitted to mention the one verse that answers your question. 

 And I didn't omit anything. I put up the relevant chapter and verses MATHEW 3:13-17 which  INCLUDES the verse that you assume that I was "omitting". 

 Presently, there are far too many gaps in your position and it looks like to me anyway 

 There are far too many gaps in the whole scriptures to make any sense of them as they stand and as they are taught. 

 Nope. At his trial  he denied doing and saying anything in secret when the scriptures clearly state that he did.  Such as here ..John 7:10

Ok. Well that string is stretching again. 

Well that is only your opinion, but quoting scripture directly is not stretching string or anything else. Jesus denied speaking in secret when THE BIBLE say he did. Jesus denied doing anything in secret, when THE BIBLE says he did.  

I am not denying anything. I agreed that they met in secret with Jesus away from the Romans and the Jewish leaders.   

Then why accuse me of string stretching? make your mind up?

This is quite different however from having secret groups or people that were not known within the group.

 Opinion.

It is highly unlikely based on any of the passages you have used to demonstrate the disciples did not know Joseph or Nicodemus. 

Why?  We see only those two secret disciples apart and together . We don't read of them having any type of engagement with any one else apart from Jesus. And when I speak of disciples  it doesn't automatically follow that I speak only of his inner circle of 12.  And again, from the BIBLE we can se that Jesus at least  his doubts about Simon Peter  going so far as to call him "satan". 

Post 148 takes care of your objections.

it is nice to see some people attempting to provide good material to consider.  

I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense.  No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement. 

So soon? Within the span of a generation. What generation do you think Jesus is referring to, and how long does the NT give a generation to be? 

What happenings do you not believe were fulfilled in the 1st-century before the destruction of the city and temple?

What does it mean when Jesus said He would "come in the Father's glory?" How did the Father manifest Himself in glory in the OT? 

In Matthew 24 and Revelation, do you take every verse as woodenly literal, or do you understand some verses speak of the figurative or metaphorical? 

Do you understand that Revelation is John's version of the Olivet Discourse, taking place at the beginning of the tribulation?

Revelation 1:9

[ The Patmos Vision ] I, John, your brother and fellow participant in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

The same great tribulation Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of in their version of the Olivet Discourse, John also speaks about, yet he puts himself in the tribulation that was yet to come for the other three authors. 

Firstly,  there is no indication that they did either or  Jesus had told them .  Remember these meeting were carried out in secret "for fear of the Jews".  

Secondly, I didn't say "Josephus"  I have clearly stated Joseph of Arimathea

I said Joseph of Arimathea

I didn't say he was in a secret group I have said he was a secret disciple BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO! and probably unknown to the others because of his position as a Pharisee and a member of the council, he had to be kept secret that he/they was a supporters of Jesus .

There simply is no evidence. None whatsoever.  The same applies to Nicodemus.  I thought you had something solid.  He met Jesus at night in order for the Jews or the Pharisees not to find out - since they were trying to kill Jesus. 

Indeed and all done in secret. As the bible clearly states. You can deny all day long.  But the scriptures tell us that these things were done in secret and Jesus denied doing them in secret at his trial.

 Nope. At his trial  he denied doing and saying anything in secret when the scriptures clearly state that he did.  Such as here ..John 7:10

"Is there a reason why you omit to refer to Matthew 3:15. "let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness. Then John consented. "

 Ok, you haven't said (1) Why John forbade him in the first instance. (2) What caused John to change his mind. (3) I haven't omitted anything. I posted MATHEW 3:13-17. So you can stop your veiled insinuations that I am being sly or devious. I don't need to be sly or devious or need to make shite up. I leave that kind of deviousness to the Pastors and the Priests.

Where do the Scriptures indicate Jesus had "secret disciples" and had secret meetings?   

John 19:38 - "Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews".  And there was Nicodemus  who would only visit Jesus under the cover of darkness. Nicodemus’ Secret Conversation with Jesus: https://www.christianity.com/jesus/life-of-jesus/disciples/was-nicodemus-a-follower-of-christ.html

Where does Jesus deny it? 

John 18:20 " I have said nothing in secret".

That is an interesting perspective.  When I read the NT I don't get that they were rivals at all.   They are cousins aren't they? Possibly friends?

Well it appears on the surface that they are indeed cousins. But who fathered them both?

I think that if we are to go by biblical tradition, they were half brothers and more than likely fathered by the same person. And sibling rivalry is a theme that runs through the bible from beginning to end starting with Cain and Able.    In  actuality, this theme goes back even further if we are to look at ancient Mesopotamian literature and see that they record the first sibling rivalry of Enlil and Ninlil on earth, assumed to be myth of course but no more mythical than talking   "serpents " if we are to take it all literally.

To me it looks like Jesus persuaded John to baptise him....

How? What was said, or done or promised for John to appear to change his mind? Simply read verse: 

Matthew 3:13-17 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 King James Bible  

"But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"?

After all his years crying and wailing in the "wilderness" and preaching about "the one to come",  why would John suddenly believe that it was Jesus that should be baptising him?

The bible puts a lot of emphasis of John and his sole purpose for existing.    By all accounts he was the forerunner to the Christ, yet when the "messiah" eventually does make an appearance, John isn't having any of it?  And look at those last four words, they could just as well read in modern English   ' and you have the nerve to come to me '!!?

Why would he need to be authorised?

To do anything in the name of anyone else, one is usually authorised to do it by the authoriser.  I couldn't do or say anything in your name unless you gave me authorisation.

that pastor guy, tradesecrete or whatever,  where is he? He seems rather interesting.

Eye of the beholder, springs to mind.  I admired his tenacity, But he knows nothing of these scriptures and even admits to simply passing on what he has been told and taught to pass on. Here >> " I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received. I do not have an agenda. I really don't".    #20

It is interesting that he adds that he has "no agenda" when it is a fact that all clergy including pastors and priest have been given  a "great commission".   I find it astounding that this Pastor and Chaplin Tradesecret had forgotten this from the mouth of Christ himself:

“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.”  Amazing isn't it. That a Pastor/Chaplin can say he has "no agenda" when the bible clearly states that he most certainly has!?

I agree. It is pointless to speculate. That said, we do know that Jesus had rich and influential friends in high (and low) places. The scriptures make it clear that Jesus had "secret" disciples who were pharisee and in the council that he would "meet in secret". Although Jesus denies the fact at his trial.

So it could be that maybe it was a case that these disciples didn't know these other disciples because Jesus had kept the fact secret from them? and why Jesus didn't seem to bothered that they were performing miraculous tricks in his name. 

Again, I believe John the baptist and Jesus were rivals. Depending how it is read, the meeting at the Jordan appears on the surface to have John being subservient to Jesus.  We have to look at that conversation closely to see that it could well have been a case of John being forced to baptise Jesus.

Ask yourself, why would John believe that it was Jesus that was supposed to be baptising him? 

Or would Jesus has simply taken the view that driving out demons is a good thing and whoever does it is doing a good thing?

But then that gives rise to the question of from where and when did the other "miracle worker" get his power . Who authorised him? Jesus didn't start performing his  so called "miracles" until after his baptism by John. And what a waste of a good miracle the first one was. Water into wine!!!? I ask you?

Who are the people on this site who think they are scholars? Perhaps you could invite them join in the discussion? Although I see some people block others.

It would be nice , yes.  But they can never hold it together once they have painted themselves into a sticky theological corner and made themselves to look silly and bible ignorant with the end result being abuse and lies and denials.  (Here is a good example of a Pastor and Chaplain that teaches the bible to students in universities showing his bible ignorance #8)

Sometimes it is necessary to block people I guess.  But given your response that no one has bothered, 

??   It doesn't matter to me either way.   It simply leaves me  to post what I want without interference and agitation and any theist that I haven't blocked are welcome to comment; who is stopping any of the other believers here posting and responding to my threads? Are you suggesting that the three I have on block are the only theists here?

I appreciate your posts.

Nice.

YOUR COMING TO MY SERIAL KILLER JESUS' ENLIGHTENMENT QUOTE, PRAISE!: " I have to admit that for the first time in my entire life, i have been embarrassed to be non-theist."

DUH! Just look in what my pagan Bronze and Iron Age Christianity's thinking has to offer you in the 21st century of science and reason!  A few propositions of many that you will have to accept in being a TRUE Christian like myself are that the Earth is flat (Daniel 4:11) with four corners (Revelation 7:1) and where the earth is the center of our solar system with the sun rotating around it, and if so desired, Jesus as God can stop the sun to stand still in the sky if need be Joshua 10:12-13 and where the moon can stand still as well, and most importantly, the stars can sing (Job 38:7). Furthermore, the Earth's foundation are pillars in holding it firm (1 Samuel 2:8). Most importantly you will have to learn to despise the Sisters of Eve, aka, women, because they are 2nd class citizens, and that man is the head over the woman as Jesus' inspired words promote throughout the JUDEO-Christian Bible (Proverbs 21:9, 1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ).

I have yet to see this happen, but you will accept that donkeys can talk (Numbers 22:28). Another thing that you will have to accept is that Jesus, whom you will supplicate too and worship nonetheless, is in fact a blatant serial killer as shown when Jesus becomes the Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate within the scriptures. As one proof of this biblical axiom, is that Jesus murdered His entire creation in the Great Flood as He watched innocent babies drown as their mothers watched in horror (Hebrews 4:13). In any event, these are but a few entities that you will learn to accept because they are all inspired by Jesus' words within the scriptures (1 Thessalonians 2:13), and who wants to call Jesus a LIAR, other than the Bible ignorant fool FAUXLAW does ad infinitum!  Additionally, you will have to become a sect of the Jewish faith because Jesus ONLY came for the Jews  (Matthew 15:25) and that Jesus was the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37). 

YOUR CONTINUED QUOTE OF LEAVING YOUR PREVIOUS ERRORS OF NOT BEING A TRUE CHRISTIAN:  "Your words make me want to worship Jesus and to call him God Almighty. Everything you say makes perfect sense and suddenly i am confused about what to do."

In your confusion now, the first and foremost thing for you to do is to take your sorry ass into your biography AND FILL IT OUT! Understood?  This alone gives you a foundation in what you are and represent, and when it is left with nothing like it is now, your credence within this esteemed forum is embarrassing and goes wanting! Get it?

Religion is neither a question nor profound.

Religion is a response to a profound question.

Same question in....Same process...Variable output relative to conditioning.....Label if you will.

And you're very good at codswallop and attempting to insult.

But I just don't do insulted.

I can discuss this sort of BS with you, all day long.

And if you've read my stuff, you will see that I run with the idea of a GOD principle, but not one of the Arabian floaty about blokes.

So how would you label me?

And stop being a jerk and discuss if you are serious.

Though I have my doubts.

YOUR QUOTE SEEMINGLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT JESUS IS GOD: "In the modern western world we usually know Yeshua as Jesus. And we typically refer to Yahweh as God."

Correct, Yahweh is the Hebrew serial killer God, and conversely Jesus is this God.  Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.   How can you say, "Show us the Father?" Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.(John 14: 9-10)

YOUR QUOTE: "we typically do not refer to Jesus as God, nor do we typically refer to God as Jesus.."

The scriptures disagree with you:

“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, (Colossians 2:9)

“Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my god”  (John 20:28)

"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (2 Peter 1:1)

Theology by definition is wholly debateable , by anyone that wishes to debate/discuss theology.

Theist and atheist are merely labels we apply to each other,  and in no way affect ones ability to output data relative to theology.

The difference between someone that assumes an existent GOD and someone that doesn't, all boils down to a slight variation in how individuals, input, assimilate and output similar data.

There, but for the grace of a GOD, goes an atheist. Ha Ha.

So book reviews can't review fiction? And movie critics can't discuss fiction? Theology is usually based on myth and myth is written down. You can discuss the points without believing in them. If what you posted is true you wouldn't even be in this forum or made this post. 

Does the following pro god argument stand up to scrutiny:?

Guess who truly produces the wealth owned by the public sector. It ain't the public sector; they don't produce anything, other than by printing it. But, it's the private sector that gives it value, and it's the public sector that taxes it more than it should, thus reducing its worth.

Look it is either worth discussing or  it isn't abd if it isn't then you've made a strange choice in joining the conversation

Suffering exists so why do anything about it? Let's apply that to rape, murder, racism, sexism. child abuse, domestic violence or improving humanity in any way shape or form. What a lazy stand on life.