Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm not playing the victim. You did stalk. There is no doubt about it Stephen. You keep a list of everything I say and then use it whenever you get stuck with an answer. That's not asking and answering questions on a forum. You and Brother are fundamentally unable to engage properly in a discussion - so whenever I demonstrate your foolishness, what do you do? It's like magic. You pull out your little list and then quote me - as though that somehow diminishes the fact that you couldn't answer a question properly. It's so predictable.
Did my using a profile backfire? Yes I tend to agree. But there you have it. But what sort of child would continue to show it over and over again? Oh that's right. You and Brother Thomas. His profile is as fake as they come. And you - have nothing on yours. Hence you are just as fake as he is.
As for boasting - I haven't boasted about anything on here. The times I have responded to someone else in a discussion - and revealed stuff is exactly what that was. I don't lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Brother who seems to want to continue his little narrative about me.
I am not a doctor and I am not pretending to be one either. I have explained that entire image that Brother continues to show is nothing but a profile I put up because he and you were stalking me.
It was a profile meant for nothing more than revealing the stupidity of Brother and you. You both take it however you wish - but stop playing the clown.
I do own a farm. So what? Australia a big place. It's not a Huge farm. But it's a farm.
At least I passed high school unlike you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Hello dingbat.
did you notice in the image you keep on your file about me. It lists on my profile - female - but also that I am a doctor. So please refer to me as Dr. Tradesecret.
I'm not a doctor by the way - but if you are going to refer to that image - at least quote it in full.
LOL @ BDT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
No hypocrisy in my post. I said I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to engage. In your last post - there wasn't much engagement, but there was an attempt on your part. I can see how difficult that must have been for your tiny little brain. I am not a monster. I like to give simpletons a chance when they at least try.
The biggest hypocrite on this site is you. You are a buffoon. An ignorant atheist pretending to be the strawman christian - an ignorant atheist who doesn't have the testicles to actually man up and be an atheist. All of your bluster might appeal to Stephen, but we've read what he said about you - shila highlighted that didn't he?
He doesn't think you are particularly bright. But hey, I don't want to sabotage your one and only friendship on this site. I can sense your desperation.
I am not a sexual devient. I have said this numerous times. I have explained the other posts numerous times. But I have also indicated that it is irrelevant to this forum. It is from a completely different site. A now defunct site. A site which was the spam fest for our recently retired Shila or Harikrish.
You find it amusing. And well I suppose that reveals where your mind sits. In the gutter. That of course is not surprising for an atheist - and one without any respect for others let alone himself.
You have revealed time and time again that you are useless at reasoning, at logic, at understanding the bible, at ENGAGING in a topic. Don't think I didn't notice that ONCE AGAIN you avoid ALL of my questions in the last post. Rather - you do what you always do - ad hominem, and then distract. You call me names - and then you cut and paste a link and say - "running away again". Everyone sees it. Do you really think everyone is as stupid as you.
Please stick to the topic. Engage. If you are able.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Tradesecret to BDT "You suggest that God condones cannibalism."BDT: Tell me if you've heard this statement before, "what part of the following passages don't you understand, Bible fool?"JESUS AS GOD STATED: “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.” ( Jeremiah 19:9)JESUS AS GOD STATED: “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine. Then all flesh shall know that I am the Lord your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.” (Isaiah 49:26)As shown above, Jesus as God, not only condones cannibalism, but forces it upon His creation in the above passages in His "Godly ways," UNDERSTOOD BIBLE FOOL? HUH?
Well hello BDT. Despite the fact that this is NOT engaging. At least it seems you think it is and I think you that are trying. I know it is difficult for you to try and keep any coherent thoughts in your head and focus at the same time. So let's see what you think you have "engaged".
I suggested your initial post implied that God condoned cannibalism. I of course quite sensibly and correctly refuted your implication. Your response - your attempt at engagement is "tell me if you've heard this before"? And then you ask a second question: " what part of the following passages don't you understand"?
If your attempt at engaging is to say - "I refute your refutation, Tradesecret by repeating myself", well again it displays gross ignorance and stupidity. Especially when all you do is repeat words that I have provided a reasonable explanation of which PROVES God does not condone it. Repeating the same words - without an explanation of why you think God does condone it would be engaging. You did not do that. You repeated words which already have a plausible and rational explanation and WHICH DOES NOT require that God condones it. It appears really that you are the one who does not understand the passage. And the evidence is that you don't bother to engage with the provided explanation of the text.
The conclusion is therefore - not only did you not engage with me but you are a buffoon who does not understand basic English.
Tradesecret to BDT "You suggest that God wants his people to eat people."In answering your statement above, Jesus, as God, does not stop His creation from cannibalism as they cry out to Him, and Jesus as God, will not answer them and will hide His face from them, which suggests that Jesus as God wants His people to eat people because He won't forgive them! ?
Now here we see you are starting to engage. Not a lot - but it is a start. Your conclusion seems to be - although it is terribly articulated and reasoned - that since God did not prevent them from cannibalism and did not answer them, and will not forgive them, therefore his punishment is that they eat each other. That leads you to the conclusion that he wants them to eat each other. At least you tried. I will give you that at least.
Of course, you might like to address why God would bother talking to them - and warning them before hand of the implications of their disobedience if he just wanted them to eat each other. In fact if God just wants them to eat each other - why warn them at all? Why bother telling them that they could live a life free of cannibalism if that is not what God wanted. If you would engage with those questions - that would be helpful.
THE INSPIRED WORD OF JESUS STATED: "And I said: Hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Is it not for you to know justice?— you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people and their flesh from off their bones, who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces and chop them up like meat in a pot, like flesh in a cauldron. Then they will cry to the Lord, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have made their deeds evil." (Micah 3:1-4)
Absolutely. notice how it is a warning. It is beforehand. I take it you know the difference between warning and actuality.
TS to BDT: "You suggest that God does this personally."DUH! What part of your Bible stupid quote #1 don't you understand AGAIN?Of course Jesus does it personally, as NOT being ever loving and forgiving, because His Hebrew people have sinned, get it Bible stupid fool?!
Again you resort to non-engagement again. Sad really. At least you acknowledge that God's punishment is in respect to sin? I wonder if you know what sin they committed? I somehow expect that you might actually condone the sin rather than the fact that they have been warned not to sin. That strikes me as alarming.
"The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand, a hard-faced nation who shall not respect the old or show mercy to the young. It shall eat the offspring of your cattle and the fruit of your ground, until you are destroyed; it also shall not leave you grain, wine, or oil, the increase of your herds or the young of your flock, until they have caused you to perish. “They shall besiege you in all your towns, until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout all your land. And they shall besiege you in all your towns throughout all your land, which the Lord your God has given you. And you shall eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies shall distress you. ..." ( Deuteronomy 28:49-55)
But non-engagement you are good at and here is another example. Or do you think boldening a sentence is engagement. Please try and explain the passage. Put it context. Is it a warning to his people not to sin? Is it a proclamation to go out and sin? After all, most reasonable people would suggest that if someone warns someone from doing something, it is because they DO NOT condone it.
Here you missed the point. There is nothing in this passage that says God personally caused this to happen. Unless of course you are suggesting that since God gave them children - that he wants to them eat the babies. It is noticeable that you have omitted conveniently the blessings that God will give for obedience.
YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE #4 IN POST #595: "You suggest that eating flesh is somehow acceptable to people of the bible"Under certain circumstances, it is , you bird-brained Bible fool! "And the king asked her, “What is your trouble?” She answered, “This woman said to me, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.’ So we boiled my son and ate him. And on the next day I said to her, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him.’ But she has hidden her son.” (2 Kings 6:28-29)
Again - no engagement - just boldening letters is not engagement. And you call me stupid and bird brained. the passage of course is with Solomon is it not? The passage where Solomon is looking to determine - the good mother v the evil stealing mother. And it seems to be the case that both ate one of the children. What is not said however is that - people found it acceptable and normal and to be condoned. I would like to see you articulate this position since you are asserting it. There are precedents, admittedly, where people do eat for survival. Yet it would be a stretch to say that such exceptional circumstances are normative and condoned.
YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE #5 IN POST 595: "Yet none of these things are true."With your LYING statement shown above that goes against the biblical axioms that I have shown in this post, then this is where you run and hide AGAIN and then come up with more EXCUSES to run from said Bible facts!!! ROFLOL!!! In essence, you should be thanking me because of the FACT that you have never seen the passages of Jesus' cannibalism that I have brought forth in the first place, otherwise you would not have made yourself the Bible fool again in your post #595! 2+2=4.
Ad hominem is not engaging it is running away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
There are many ways to prove gods' existence, and the ones who try to disprove I can use their arguments against them.
proving god's existence is easy. using a philosophical logical argument can do that. For instance - there are absolutely no such thing as an absolute. This is a self contradictory statement which proves absolutes exist. The question is - what is the absolute?
Or we could use a similar argument in respect of the typical agnostic statement. "there is no way of knowing whether God exists or not". Of course this too is a self contradictory statement. How can we know this about God - unless we know something about God? It proves the existence of God. And if that is the end game then we have achieved it.
Proving that a particular god exists is another whole step though isn't it?
If God exists - he she or it either wants us to know about it or not? I suppose they could be indifferent too. If he doesn't want us to know - we would not know. If he does, then the question is how would he she or it think is the best way of letting us become aware? If it is indifferent - then whether we know or not becomes immaterial to God - and he she or it will simply do things - when and if they so choose to. Given that this last notion would mean that god does things randomly and with forethought since it is indifferent - then the conclusion must be one of the first two. Either he doesn't want us to know - which is fundamentally dumb given all of the religious positions found in the world. or he does want us to know.
How would God choose to reveal himself? What a great question. But I suppose I will let you respond to my first part of analysis and then we may go further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
No disappearing here fake man.
I just can't be bothered conversing with an ignorant bum.
When you learn to engage - we may converse. I am not going to hold my breath.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
So I said that God does not condone or support cannabalism. I also said God doesn't force people to eat people. And just for the record I absolutely own those words.
I asked for a context and what was your answer. That somehow you think I am bible stupid. That of course is just translation for Brother is even dumber than shila.
Let me put it this way.
You suggest that God condones cannibalism. You suggest that God wants his people to eat people. You suggest that God does this personally. You suggest that eating flesh is somehow acceptable to people of the bible. Yet none of these things are true.
In the first place. We know God rejects unlawful killing. We also know that God sees cannibalism as a sign of unbelief. It is clear from any of these verses you quote that God doesn't physically or literally do any of these things.
Is it a metaphor? and what is the context?
On every occasion - it is non-believers - or those who have rejected God's blessing. And how are they caused to do this? At least try and respond to that in a logical manner? Are you seriously saying God is going down to these people and force feeding them?
These people are freely doing what they want to do. God is not compelling them against their wishes. They are doing what comes natural because they have rejected God. Unless you can distinguish between first and second causes then you are simply talking into the air. Of course that is what you do.
You never bother try to figure out what the passage is actually saying. You just throw something out - you cut and paste from someone else's work and think you have won the post. You brother are stupid.
Prove me wrong. Let's work out what the passage is actually saying. Who is he talking to? what are the reasons behind what is going on? Or don't you have the brains to do that. It must make you sleep well at night - continuing the pathetic - straw man argument all of the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
you responded to one of my links of Jesus and cannibalism, therefore setting the example of not being SCARED to address the others as well, plain and simple
yet you did not respond to my refutation of your alleged supports. I responded on the last occasion - not to anything you had in response to my refutations - since you didn't offer any. My response was only to once again point out the obvious which is that you don't want to discuss these things.
On many occasion you start something but never go any further with the discussion. You repeat exactly the same thing over and over again. I hardly ever respond to those comments. There simply is no point. I like to discuss these things. You don't. You just want to assert your opinion. Use a verse out of context to support your opinion and then refuse to consider what the context is really talking about. You are not only a fraud and a fake. You are also stupid. Obviously so - or you would attempt to engage. You don't get to the point of attempting. Typical Atheist. All talk and no substance.
Remember dear, you erroneously proffered that Jesus as God never forced His creation to eat flesh, whereas, in your chagrin AGAIN, I showed you that He did in the two instances shown at your embarrassment again!
Where did I say that - and if I did what was the context. Don't just misinterpret my words so that you try to score a point. actually make an argument and try and destroy my arguments properly. Or don't you have the balls to do so. Personally, you are all bluster, no substance - and not particularly bright. If you had the intelligence - you would stop hiding behind a stupid and fake person - which I think actually represents you quite well on some levels. Fake, and no substance and not particularly bright. Take off the religious veneer and I reckon it suits you to a tee. Still no substance. Still not particularly bright. But we can wait - God can work miracles even with some of the not so bright atheists.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Tradsecret wrote: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGUEW9Absolute unnecessary filth. And from someone that tells s/he was "chosen by god"!"Indian"!!!?From someone that claims to be a Chaplain to his/her "countries armed forces"! And "a Pastor with a congregation of over 300" including women and children?Someone that often declares her/his "honesty" and "integrity!
Repeating this shows how desperate you are.
I've explained this. But you don't really want an explanation. So You can just carry on - in this very mature way that you are carrying on in. Cheers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Addressing your feeble post #576.YOUR LYING QUOTES ONCE AGAIN BECAUSE OF YOUR BIBLE IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY!: “Another mistruth by our resident atheist masquerading as a fool. No True Christian thinks God forces people to eat other people ....... whilst also refuting the lies that Jesus encouraged it ......."JESUS AS GOD STATED: “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.” ( Jeremiah 19:9)What part of Jesus explicitly stating “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters ….” don’t you understand? Huh? Therefore Jesus as God forces people to eat other people, get it Bible fool Miss Tradesecret? LOL!JESUS AS GOD STATED: “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine. Then all flesh shall know that I am the Lord your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.” (Isaiah 49:26)What part of Jesus explicitly stating “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh don’t you understand? Therefore, Jesus as God, forces the oppressors to eat their own flesh, get it Bible ignorant Miss Tradesecret? LOL!
So your response to any of my comments is "what part don't you understand?". Seriously, This is another reason I don't bother responding to you.
You don't know how to engage with me. You select a quote - and quote it. That is the extent of your argument. I have just refuted all of your quotes. Demonstrating their meaning. You didn't even bother saying - you are wrong. You just say - what part don't you understand? You are nothing short of stupid.
Miss Tradesecret, since you found your “big girl pants,” then you can address the many other links pertaining to “THE CASE OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS,” praise! WAIT! you’re not going to come up with another EXCUSE to run away from these other links regarding Jesus are you? Naaaaah, you’re not, because that would be too much embarrassment for you, wouldn't it?
Well it's not a matter of finding anything. It is a matter of hoping that you actually want to discuss even one topic. But that is not your MO. You don't engage. I give you an opportunity and you FAIL.
And then you just drop about a million topics. If you can't even engage with the one you asked me to engage with. And you can't be bothered really looking at it - then it is YOU WHO HAS RUN AWAY. You run away by dropping so many posts that no one can be bothered responding to any. I took the chance that you might start with one. But again you run away into the ether.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
From post https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8091/post-links/356445. #546
THE CASE OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS FORCING CANNIBALISM UPON HIS CREATION AND ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE
Well here is a refreshingly interesting topic.
As the TRUE Christian should be aware of, sometimes our Jesus, as God in the Old and New Testaments, forces people to eat other people, often their own children or other family members, ewwwwwwww! But, who are the Christians in the 21st Century to say that Jesus was wrong in making others eat their own children and other people? NOT ME! Another instance showing that Jesus is NOT ever loving and forgiving like so many Bible inept pseudo-christians may think. :(
Another mistruth by our resident atheist masquerading as a fool. No True Christian thinks God forces people to eat other people. Hopefully all 21st Century Christians would suggest that cannibalism is wrong whilst also refuting the lies that Jesus encouraged it. Brother - you reveal only your ignorance as an atheist. So now let's examine each of these texts and their meaning.
"I also will do this unto you... You shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it." (Leviticus 26:16)
This verse is talking about plant seed. Not human seed. It is the context of awards for obedience and punishment for disobedience. Nothing to do with cannibalism on any level.
"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." Leviticus 26:29)
This verse is in the same context. It is talking about eating the flesh of sons and daughters. It is however for those who wish to read will see it is the result of people who have disobeyed God and are running away from him. Notice God is not forcing them to do this. He is not causing them to do this. It is the result of their own sin and disobedience even after God has called them back to obedience. It is the natural result of continuing in disobedience. It is NOTEWORTHY that God calls this a curse and not a blessing. God doesn't advocate this - but is in fact warning his people that these will be the natural results of disobedience if they continue in disobedience. Hence - God is saying cannibalism is a curse.
"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters." (Deuteronomy 28:53)
This verse is in the context of curses for disobedience. Similar to the last passage from Leviticus. It is if you read the whole verse the result of the suffering inflicted on them by their enemies during a siege - that they will end up eating their own children. It is a sad indictment on people who have disobeyed God and his laws. It is talking about the situation when people have rejected God and done their own things. They rejected God's blessing and said - We will live life as we want to. God says of course - that actions have consequences - you don't want me - so I will leave you to your own devices and your enemies will come - and since you don't want me - there is no need for me to protect you - and so what will happen - when you are seiged by the enemy you will eventually run out of food - and start to eat your children. It is a warning to them. Don't abandon me. Obey me. I won't force you to obey me - but if you won't then you obviously don't need my protection and so I will respect your wishes and leave. But there will be natural implications.
"And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them.” (Deuteronomy 28:57)
this is happening in the same contest. the result of the people abandoning God and telling him you don't want his help. The meaning is - actions have consequences. From God's point of view - it is a curse. Not one he brought on them - but one that they know will result naturally from telling God to get lost.
"Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm.” (Isaiah 9:19-20)
This is the context of the people not seeking God. Of the leaders in the community being corrupt lying to their people. Who are misleading the people - v. 17 everyone is ungodly. and wicked. Every mouth speaks vileness. God is angry with them. They don't want him. they have rejected him. They don't want his help or his blessing. they don't want his protection. They are strong and independent. So when the enemy invades - scorches the earth - these ungodly and wicked people rather than sparing his brother and doing what is right - will do what comes natural to the person who hates God, they will feed on each other.
"And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine." (Isaiah 49:26)
This is in the opposite stream. Here Israel has repented of her sins and now God is going to restore her. He will protect his people from their enemies. His enemies will turn in on upon themselves - and since there are many pagan nations warring against each other - the assyrians and the Persians for example vying over the supremacy of the world - they will fight to the death. God says I will cause these nations to be cursed. He is not suggesting that cannibalism is good -but rather a curse. And when Israel is restored - these things will stop in their own land - but they will continue in on the lands where the Lord is not obeyed.
"And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend.” (Jeremiah 19:9)
Again cannibalism is a natural consequence of disobedience. His people had abandoned him - and were worshiping other gods. It is a curse not advocated.
"Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers.” (Ezekiel 5:10)"I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another." (Zechariah 11:9)
Both are similar. The fact is - God does not condone cannibalism - it is a curse not a blessing. It occurs when people abandon God,
Hence - your lies are lies. God never encouraged it. But rather condemned it and warned against it.
If the best you can do Brother is cut and paste someone else work then you reveal your ignorance. How about a challenge for you.
Next time read the context and see whether God is saying it is a good thing or a bad thing, I figure one as ignorant as you ought to be able to do that.
As I have said - all you have done is quote a verse - next time put it into a context and try and understand what the verse is saying.
You really are a terrible model for Atheists. Especially atheists who value an academic exercise properly.
I would have thought that a more interesting exercise in relation to cannibalism would be to look at the eucharist. That is where the real critics have more ammunition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
All of us are just waiting for your new perspective.
And waiting and waiting.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen - honestly you really don't know what you are talking about.
I am who I am. I don't resile from my words or my position.
the fact that this is such a big deal is really on you.
Just for the record - short of exposing myself in the real world, what evidence would you accept that it is true?
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
You forgot to address this post in this thread in the following link that you are still RUNNING AWAY from! Whats new? NOTHING! LOL!
Nope, didn't forget. Just didn't see anything in that post worth responding to. Just the ravings of a poor irrational madman or duck or something like that.
YOUR QUOTE IN YOUR FEEBLE POSTS #1596 : "Of course, you really don't have a clue about the bible - oh yes, you can quote - but you can't understand,"Tell you what, to prove that I have forgotten more about the Bible than you will ever learn, how about we discuss your admittance of being AN UNGODLY AND DESPICABLE SEXUAL DEVIANT WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS!!!!!? I will show passages that you will end up in HELL, where all women are going anyway, and then you can bring forth your inept OPINIONS ONLY like you did in the link in question above that biblically go nowhere! ,
amazing. you get challenged and immediately your mind goes to the gutter.
I see you are unable to change. If you want to have a real discussion then let's have one. Stop with the silly links. And ask a proper theological question without any of the adds on of fakery. I simply don't think you are serious. I am not going to waste more time on someone who has no respect for the process, even less so for anyone you want to discuss matters with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I never said otherwise. He was not an apostle. But he is a disciple using even the terminology you used.
I said that disciples are those that follow Jesus and were taught by him and obeyed his commands. Not all of them are called disciples by name but they are still the same. Also many people followed Jesus, who were not disciples. They were following the hype and the fame of the man - hoping for a miracle for instance.
But not everyone was an apostle. There were 12. And later Paul. Judas died and was replaced. We don't hear of any further replacements. Only Paul who was added as an apostle to the gentiles. Of course there were also another group of people who were known as apostles - but not of the 12. Probably since the term means "sent ones", they were evangelists or church planters or missionaries.
Lazarus I think is the disciple whom Jesus loved. Most commentators hold a different view. They might be right. I'm probably wrong. Yet when I read John - it is Lazarus whom Jesus is said to have loved. It doesn't really say that in the same way about John. Unless of course the author of the book is John. It certainly adds colour to the story towards the end of John where Peter is talking to Jesus - about his own death and perhaps the death of the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Obviously, Peter knew that Lazarus had died already and been raised from the dead. Peter wondered whether Lazarus might die again or live for ever. Jesus remarks are quite intriguing in that passage. Depending upon whether the person is John or Lazarus opens that up for further intrigue. Of course there are many traditions that suggest John the Apostle did not die on Patmos - but rather lived - and continues to live - even with the cup of life - whatever that is. I think more likely that Lazarus did eventually die for a second time. Still, it is not a hill I will die on. For me it is personal curiosity rather than a deep theological mystery.
And certainly not a secret that is being hid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why Sunday?
Because the first day of the week is when Jesus rose from the dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I can quote the bible if I wanted to - but I don't see why I should waste my time and yours by just going to my search engine so that you can abuse me back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What is the spirit?
Some say it goes back to God.
Is the spirit - just God's breath of life to us or is it something more?
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I'm still gasping - la la la la
Gasping at the sheer stupidity that continually pours out of your mouth. How you can hold your head in this forum is sheer madness. And yet there you have it. The epitome of madness.
It's so sad that it has come to this in our discussions. Just tit for tat - rather than discussing anything of merit. Of course, you really don't have a clue about the bible - oh yes, you can quote - but you can't understand,.
And I suppose that is primary reason you just shout and bluster and NEVER address or engage with me in the discussions of verses. You quote a verse- think that resolves it. I respond with an explanation based on the context. You ether ignore it - or abuse me somehow. That is your MO.
Should I expect you to change? No not really. Only a true Christian would be able to change.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You don't have a clue do you? Chaplains in the defence force don't all come from denominations that use the term reverend. Some denominations would be offended by the term. So do you think the Defence Force is going to call them something they find offensive? You must have a low view of the Defence force.
I have read your list of what you say my list is. I can't think of anything that needs to be removed. I could add a few things. Would you like to read my book/s?
I honestly don't know what your problem is - that I have such qualifications or that I have been involved in this world in such a wide variety of ways.
Is it because you haven't? Is this really envy?
I am not delusional. Really I am not. But it hurts doesn't it? You hate that there are people who have the ability to show that you are a fraud and liar. Is that why you are so hateful of me? Yes, I know - you will say "I don't hate you". LOL@ the lie therein.
I don't have to justify anything to you.
I haven't backpedaled. As though you had the ability to make me back peddle - LOL @ you. You have pushed my buttons at times. It is true that sometimes I find it difficult to believe how stupid you are. You have frustrated me. This is true too. I have abused you. Sworn at you. Used language that was unacceptable. But backpedaling is another story - because therein lies that I have not been honest. And although I have many faults - honesty is not one of them.
But you believe that all people associated with the church, particularly theologians, clergy, pastors etc are dishonest. That is your starting point. And so that is where you always seem to drive. It's a little weird really. But there you have it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
A disciple is someone who followed Jesus. They don't have to be called a disciple.
That is not conjecture. You already established it weeks ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, as always you never do your homework.
I know you have everything I have ever written on this site - so dump it into Word, do a search and push return.
You will find it.
And if you can't either you are useless at searching - or you are intentionally not providing it.
And then the question will be - why not?
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Oh dear,
have you dared to lift your head after the shame and embarrassment that you went through? How delightful that you continue to come back to face even more embarrassment.
You are the laughing stock of this site - and of atheists in general. Most of them hide their heads away when you arrive and spout more nonsense.
The apex of atheism has descended to reveal he is totally ignorant of Christian teachings.
Not surprising really. Another reason to ignore even the so called sensible atheists - since he is purporting to represent them. And what do they do? Do they tell him to pull his head in? No they give him a prize. You gotta love it. They hang their heads in shame and give him an award. Talk about consistency. I think there is another word for this two facedness. I wonder what that could be.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
LOL @ your assumptions.
Quoting me doesn't save your bacon. It just shows you are as foolish and presumptuous as always.
At the time I had the qualifications necessary - but was not a reverend. I know you think otherwise. But you are incorrect.
I have not back peddled. I just don't give you all the information. Oh yes I have given more than what was probably wise given your predilection towards stalking and abuse. But I like to watch how clever you think you are.
I haven't lied about myself. Not once anywhere on the forum pages. Tis true as I said recently, I changed my profile since both you and Brother are stalkers.
So if that is all you have - then please apologise for being such a liar. You have got nothing - that any person with a reasoned and unbiased person would see as evidence. Of course your little sad case duck Brother would agree with you, is that surprising?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
alas dear Brother
it is you who runs away. And the best example of you running away is you posting links rather than actually having a discussion.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Throw a brick into the middle of a pack of swine and what do you get?
Brother D Thomas whining about his poor ego and how Mr Tradesecret makes him feel so bad.
quack - or is it oink?
You own nothing except a lousy way of getting people's attention.
You are not a true Christian. you are not a Christian. You are a sorry excuse for an atheist who has been beaten up so bad over time - that you have to pretend to be your enemy to try and make them look bad. Sadly for you, however, is that no one believes that you are Christian, good or bad or otherwise. Your parody at the end of the day demonstrates how completely and utterly wrong you are about Christians and the Bible.
After all, if everyone sees an atheist pretending to be a Christian - that no Christian would ever come close to being like, then it is the classic paradigm not only of a straw man - but reveals how deeply flawed your brain is.
So as I said - grow a brain. Stop being such a dunse. Come back to reality and at least try to represent what you really think from your point of view - rather than misrepresenting what you clearly think is just plain silliness. At least then we can have a real discussion. Or are you afraid of what you really believe - because you know it has no real substance to it - and reflects a perverted and slavish mentality to foolishness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Not at all. Have you ever seen Secret Mark? Because know you haven't read it? It is nothing more than a few incomplete pages and there is nothing to be garnered from it in the way of information never mind good reliable information, tradescret.I have told you. Where this forum is concerned, I have only questioned the bible, and my information comes directly from the BIBLE. I do not need to reach for extrabiblical works or other "commentators" to show how unreliable and ambiguous these stories are. This is not to mention it's outright lies. You just do not know your subject enough to realise this.
Have I ever said I have read the Secret book of Mark? I know you think it is brilliant.
I know that you don't know your subject. And you prove that over and over again.
Stop asking me about Lazerus. I have told you I have answered it. You said at that time it was not answer. I told you. and Let me repeat it for your sake again. You didn't like the answer. Because it contradicts your pet theory of a secret society.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
You are not a Christian. You are an atheist dressed up in a facade that is a shadow of a religious person at best. Not Christian. Quoting the bible out of context. Claiming to love a Jesus that is not demonstrated in the Bible, and abusing people is actually the visible representation of an atheist having a conscious problem.
What you need to do Brother is - repent of your atheism, repent of your sins, and turn to Jesus for mercy. Who knows - he may forgive you if you are genuine.
But to claim you are a Christian is simply nonsense. No one believes you - not even yourself.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Attempting to bury your over inflated and self-aggrandisements of the past as if it never happened, doesn't work, Tradesecret. It will always follow you around while you keep up the pretence and while I am here to remind you if and when the occasion calls for it.
You speak with silliness and ignorance as always. Many months ago you accused me of being a reverend. At the time I was not. I was a pastor in a church. But not a reverend. You went to google - found some obscure piece of information from the other side of the world and attempted to apply that to my situation. You were wrong. I didn't care. I just told you that you were wrong. I even tried provide some explanations as to why you were wrong. But did Stephen acknowledge the possibility that Stephen might be wrong? Of course not. He is an arrogant Pratt and an IGNORANT Pratt. Stephen then spent needless energy attempting to prove why I was wrong - and why I was a liar and why I didn't know what I was doing or talking about. That of course is Stephen's MO. Rather than accepting that others know more than he does in particular situations - he just switches to Ignoramus personified and wastes energy and time. I never asked to be called reverend. I never said I was reverend. Stephen couldn't find anywhere that I suggested that. And for the record I still don't. But Stephen, things have changed since.
In relation to other matters, I can honestly and with integrity concede that I have never intentionally told a lie on this site. I have said things I regret. Such as using foul language and abusing you. It was right of you to call me out on that. And I haven't said otherwise. But I have never intentionally told a lie. I don't actually have a reason to do so. I have on occasion used language that is intentionally ambiguous. Perhaps that is deceitful. Perhaps it is not. I have used language in parody, in sarcasm, and with irony. I concede that they too can be misunderstood. I also accept that I should not complain if people do misunderstand those types of language since the internet and writing doesn't always convey communication properly.
I don't have a self centred personality - at least no worse than anyone else in this world. I don't have delusions about myself. I give an honest appraisal of myself. And for that I don't have to prove myself to anyone. I have never said I was perfect or was all knowing. Unlike others here who actually think they are god.
the rest of your post - is well nothing more than envy. You hate the fact that others have done something with their lives. You are the one who has a fragile ego.
the evidence for this is your attacks on anyone who disagrees with you and then a follow up denial saying I have never attacked anyone.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yes. that is true. It is all talking about the person. All the truth.
Not an argument - just telling it how it is.
I don't care what you think about me. Whatever you think you know - may or may not be accurate. It worries me not.
However for the most part - I am not pretending to be someone I am not.
changing my profile from time to time was done as I have previously indicated - a result of the trolling and stalking of you and the Brother.
My profile has indeed changed. I have admitted that. Yet in the forum posts I have always indicated whom I am and what gender I am.
I have not pretended to be anything that what I am. Of course - times change and what I have said in the past - while true then may be different now.
That doesn't make it untrue either in the past or in the present - even if they are not the same at the moment.
Yes, I know - you will add this to your stalking sheet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You do like to talk nonsense. Just because I don't give you complete answers doesn't mean that when I add to what I previously that I am backpedaling. In fact that sort of response by you is just silly. Imagine if we did with you?
You use the secret book of Mark as your little go to book. don't be so modest.
there are many views on the book of Mark. One as you rightly say is that it came before Matthew and Luke - and that they used it as a source document. Along with another one perhaps known as Q. You can believe anything you want to Stevie - and I am sure that nothing anyone says on this site is going to change you. You see yourself as some kind of guru who impart your secret knowledge. So go Stevie Go.
I wonder if you actually read what you write.
On other hand you say you don't believe the bible is telling secrets, yet it is hiding a story. And even Jesus according to you is hiding secrets. LOL!
But that's ok Stephen, go for it.
I still find it intriguing that you expect the Synoptics to tell exactly the same story. And that John would simply provide the same stories and never add any other stories. Whenever you make a comment like that it just fills me with a smile. And you don't even know why.
Each of the four gospels are telling the same story, Not exactly of course. But they are all presenting it quite different ways. Sometimes they use the same source and sometimes they don't. The question is not whether they agree perfectly but whether they actually contradict each other. Witnesses never tell exactly the same story - or else they are seen to be scheming - a conspiracy. When they give different aspects - and sometimes different scenarios - it adds to the picture - but also provides the vibe of authencity.
the gospels are also writing to different audiences. True - all of the gospels are in one book now. But that is not how it originally was. I know you think this is irrelevant. But most commentators if not all - disagree with you.
How one gospel writer is going to explain the story to Gentiles is going to be very different to Jews. And how a gospel writer is going to explain things - to both at the same time is going to be different to how one might write to separate. Still, I suspect that will go through to the keeper as well.
There are reasons why some books made it to the NT and why many didn't. As an atheist your ideas about this could not possibly include the supernatural or that God determined what these would be. It therefore must have been a man made decision for one or more out of several possible motivations. Power perhaps - keeping a secret perhaps. Money and wealth perhaps. Yes, but nothing good.
For the Christian, for the ones who believe in God and the supernatural, there are other more likely scenarios and purposes. And even some who believe in the supernatural may well have purposes for why some make it and some did not. Many might suggest that the Catholic Church kept only those which fit in line with making it powerful. Perhaps to say - we put the bible together. We therefore made it and are authoritative over it.
Of course Protestants have a different view. As others do as well.
None of these ideas are new of course. They have been debated many times by many different people. And depending upon the skill and the information that some have - sometimes the conclusions are very different.
We await o Stephen, grandmaster of ceremonies of your fountain of wisdom to the truth - the secret knowledge that you have .
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Are you ever going to grow a brain? I am not going to hold my breath.
You don't deserve to be on this site. Your original persona is gone. People have dusted it a long time ago.
This new one had some funny and humorous aspects. But now it is just boring and tedious.
You don't have anything to add. So why don't you just drop the persona and be yourself?
Or are you embarrassed to be true self? I can understand that - I can't identify of course - but when someone pretends for such a long time to be someone else - it must create a conflict in your little brain.
So just come out - the closet is not locked. We are all waiting to see the beautiful butterfly. You certainly have been in that cocoon for such a long time - you must be gorgeous.
Waiting, But not holding my breath. It's ok to laugh - have a smile and just do it. Its ok.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Hi PGA2.) nice to see you - and a brilliant response AGAIN. Too bad Brother Thomas doesn't have the skills to match it with you. His only tool is - foolishness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Me coming onto this site on my own free will doesn't negate that the fact that you were baiting me. The two are not mutually exclusive. Me responding, is a choice I own.
Most commentators have concluded that John wrote the gospel. Of course many do that out of the fact that others have done their homework and provided arguments for and against why it was John. I think many of those reasons are valid as well. I don't dismiss out of hand that it may well have been John. But there are plenty of scholars who also hold that Lazarus wrote it. Indeed there are plenty of others who have different views.
I don't consider the fact that these variances within scholarship are problematic. If people have a view and they can demonstrate how they arrived at that conclusion on a rational basis then it shows it is not just a random thought by one or two people. The bible as a whole- is pretty unambiguous. Of course there are difficult texts - take 1 Corinthians 15:29 as an example. There are over 300 views as to what this is talking about. Given your novel ideas as to death and resurrection., I suspect your views would be interesting to hear as well.
But for me to say the bible is crystal clear and written to be communicated does not mean that there are not difficult places that require more work or that may never be explained. I have indicated on numerous occasions that such hard and difficult texts ought be explained first by going to the easier texts where there is no misunderstanding and then go back to the harder ones. That of course is a normal rule of grammar and interpretation.
The bible is not a code book. It doesn't really have secret messages. You don't need to have special knowledge to understand it. Yet, much is spiritually discerned.
And what I mean by discerned is not about acquiring knowledge - but the difference between knowledge and wisdom. If someone believes the Bible is the Word of God then they will tend to harmonise the scriptures and the facts within them as opposed to someone who doesn't believe the Bible to be the Word of God. We see that all the time on this site and on others around the world. If you believe the bible to be infallible and inerrant - then your tendency is towards understanding it from that perspective. If you don't then you don't have to be concerned with that, rather seeing what might not be contradictions as contradictions etc.
You don't believe in God,. You don't believe the bible to inerrant etc. But you do hold the bible as something unique which is attempting to tell us secrets. Perhaps you have picked up on Isaac Newton's curious vibe that the bible has secrets within it. We know you were looking at the secret gospel of mark - and like to dabble in reading the gnostic books - all which require a "secret knowledge" to understand the bible and other books.
This is the thing. Knowing that some people hold to a view is not the same as saying that you agree to view. I appreciate that some people in this world are gnostics and that they think the bible is a secret code book. It doesn't make them right - it does make them a little bit crazy and superstitious. the reason they haven't hit mainstream is mostly not because of the opposition from the church, but because they haven't been able to persuade others. They tend to hand around in websites trying to peddle their positions. And sometimes they get a few hanger-on.
Is that you? Who knows.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Do you think baiting me more is going to get your desired outcome? Obviously or you wouldn't keep doing it.
I don't think it is relevant for the biblical narrative to know who the witnesses were - based on the fact that they remained unnamed.
I suggested that one of the disciples who followed was Lazarus. The reason I suggested that is most commentators suggest it was the disciple Jesus loved - the author of the gospel. That is the most common conjecture by most commentators. My reasoning is - based on the view that tend to think that the gospel was written by Lazarus. I am not going into that now. But I think there are somewhat compelling reasons to think that. Having said that - though - it is not a deal breaker. It helps in understanding a couple of key incidents in the gospel for me.
People in discussion often raise points in order to come back to later. Do lawyers do that? I would suggest that a good cross-examiner would circle back to particular points in their examination when necessary.
You have many constraints in your narrative. One is - your secret gospel of Mark. I don't have to prove Jesus existed. That has been done by the historians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No, you haven't thrown any barbs or insults. dripping sarcasm.
and as for following the biblical narrative - well - just in the way you and you alone see it.
As has been pointed out now on many occasions, no one else arrives at the same conclusions as you do.
You just make stuff up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
you have made it clear you can't learn anything from me. So why would I bother?
There is as much ground for it being Lazarus as anyone you have suggested.
What I know is irrelevant.
You have your beliefs as do I. The difference is others come to the same conclusions as I do since it a reason belief. You on the hand sit alone with no one to support your views - since your views are unreasonable, illogical and no one can see your logic.
Of course I set the rules about me. You don't get to set my rules. what sort of arrogant Pratt are you to think that you can set my rules? If you are interested in what I wrote - you go and find it. It is not for me to do your work.
I regret lots of things. I at least have the integrity and honesty to own it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The grounds that he was following Jesus.
You haven't taught me anything sunshine. My entire conversation has been one of drawing out what you believe - not what I believe.
As for what I said previously, if you care, you go and look for it. It's not my job to do your work for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No you haven't and now you are simply telling lies.And it is relevant to this topic.So I will put your non answer down to another "I don't know, Stephen, because I do not know my BIBLE after all my years of "studying it, memorising it. lecturing on it and preaching it".
I didn't tell a lie. You didn't like my answer. Not the same thing at all. It's not relevant to the topic of who are the witnesses? I raised Lazarus not as a witness but as potentially one of the disciples who followed Jesus after he was arrested. Why people wanted him dead is irrelevant? But I am sure you will now provide us why it is relevant. Waiting. Ad hominem arguments are your forte are they not?
"You have not yet provided any evidenceFor what? You see again you have lost sight of what the purpose of this thread actually is.
I see you have lost site of the topic. You are the one who raised the question of "certain false witnesses" with the implication that they were two of Jesus' disciples. Have you forgotten? Unless the purpose of the thread is simply to reveal how stupid you are. In that case you are a very compelling prosecutor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Me, I don't have anything invested in this topicI can agree with that....to a point. You have had no credible input and your only contributions have been - among other things ...are your blatant denials of BIBLICAL facts.
On the contrary I have exposed you as a fraud and manipulator of the truth. You have not yet provided any evidence, any date to substantiate who the witnesses are.
Not a scrap.
Answer me this;Why did the Jews want Lazarus dead?
I've answered that elsewhere - but it's totally irrelevant for this topic, isn't it Stephen? but you need a distraction from the topic because I have exposed ONCE AGAIN as being incompetent and foolish. Making things up and speaking about things you have no idea about. Have a good evening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So just to be perfectly clear.
You have not got nothing.
we are on page 5 of this topic of yours and so far - nothing.
Now you can blame me if you like - as you surely will predictably do.
But the fact is Stephen, you have got nothing.
We do know for a BIBLICAL fact that it was TWO of his disciples that followed him. We do know for a BIBLICAL fact that at that point of the story at least one went into the courtyard where the trial was to take place and after the arrest. And we know for a BIBLICAL fact that he was betrayed by at least one of his close circle of twelve, don't we? SO, why not another?That is why I started with his own circle of twelve.I have said already, I will get around to these other Simons and those that wanted to be rid of him when I have to stop batting off your denials of what the BIBLE actually states and challenging your own speculation and guess work and your if's but's and maybe's. Just like I am having to do now, AGAIN!Let's see.You have denied actual disciples were in fact disciples. You have denied some disciples were secret disciples when they were in fact secret disciples. You have denied apostles were disciples and have invented a disciple in Lazarus. And that is off the top of my head and without me having to go back over this thread.
two disciples followed him. Ok I agree with that. But now let's see you link that to the witnesses. That is where you started - but so far you have suggested these two witnesses are Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Simon Peter, Judas, perhaps Judas' father Simon and perhaps Simon the Leper and Simon the Canannaite. And interestingly so far - not even a little baby link.
whereas the most likely scenario is it was just a couple of guys of the street looking for some extra money by the pharisees to frame Jesus. Nameless they are - and nameless they remain. Especially after such a dodgy and weak explanation as you give.
Me, I don't have anything invested in this topic - hence why I don't particular care about the outcome - but you Stephen, it's the farm. and so far the farm is looking pretty shaky.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So no one supports your dodgy view. How unsurprising.
The greek is important. I have never said otherwise. Yes, I am comfortable with the English and the way it is translated in principle. Yet, if there are ambiguities or words that some people wish to take out of context, then the original languages do assist us. The fact that you are steering clear of the greek and also attempting to make me seem inconsistent is noteworthy.
The word also means also. It does not mean simply two people "together with" which is what you are meaning. The text clearly lists 12 disciples. One after the next. These are the 12 disciples, these are their names. And we get to Judas. And the author says - not only is he a disciple but he ALSO betrayed Jesus. For your interpretation of "together with" to stand, you would need to demonstrate from within the list that the author says of another disciple, this man is a disciple and betrayed Jesus. And then the word "also" might be stretched to mean "together with". But none of the other disciples are said to have betrayed Jesus - not in that list. All of them are named disciples. Which is what we expect. and then Judas is mentioned. Yes, he too was a disciple - but he ALSO betrayed Jesus.
Wake up and smell the roses Stephen. Stop with the silly interpretations. It doesn't make sense what you are saying. You have no other supporters - or at least have not provided any.
You haven't demonstrated ANYWHERE that Simon the Leper or Simon the Caananite is one and the same person - let alone the same as Simon the father of Judas Iscariot. I am able to infer the first connection but the second one - there is not even a scrap of data supporting - save and except perhaps they both have the same first name.
Simon Peter is not Judas Iscariot's father. Where you get these ideas is some kind of magic mushroom's fantasy la la land.
There were two false witnesses. We both agree with that. They weren't called disciples. We can agree with that. They seemed to have heard some of Jesus' words. We can both agree with that. Those are the data and the facts that we can rely upon. Their names were not mentioned. Or recorded. We both agree with that. The question then is did anyone apart from the disciples ever hear some of Jesus' words about the temple? And the answer is yes. There is a recorded discussion where Jesus talked about the temple being destroyed and others picking up stones to kill him or calling him mad or possessed by a spirit of demons.
Rather than attempting to look within the circle of disciples, why not look around at those who had the most to gain by Jesus' death? Judas of course did betray Jesus. But were there more than one? Not that the bible indicates. But the Jews were plotting to kill him. The religious leaders wanted to get rid of him. These are the plain and obvious facts. Occam's razor tells us the simplest explanation is often the correct one.
You are simply casting spurious and unwarranted speculations and silliness into what is a clear story.
The rest of your post is so full of holes it is difficult to know where to start.
If you want to continue this discussion - clear up your mess and keep the posts shorter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
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 10:4Simon 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.
In the greek, the sentence does include the word kai. That is the Greek word, for "and, but, also, and then, yet, even". It is a grammatical conjunction, a logical ascensive, an emphatic adverb. The KJV translated it as "also". But the term kai follows another little word in the greek. It is o, translated often as "the" a singular article which is nominative. In the sentence it is translated "who" since it is singular. A very literal translation is and "Judas Iscariot, the one who also betrayed him. "also" used in an emphatic sense.
What is obvious is that it cannot be translated to mean - Simon and Judas betrayed Jesus. and it cannot be translated to mean that Judas along with some else also betrayed him. You can repeat it all you like - it doesn't change the facts. Do you have any authoritative sources that might agree with your bad interpretation? Or are you going to stand on this really dodgy understanding of the word and try and draw a conclusion that anyone with half an idea of the original languages would just laugh and mock you.
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.
I am not sure whether to laugh or cry at your stupidity. There is NO evidence whatsoever that the Simon the Zealot is the same as Simon Iscariot. It seems that Judas' dad is called Simon. And so you just draw link to Simon the zealot. On what basis? On the word "also". There are many Simons in the bible and in those times. Yes, it is plausible that Simon the Pharisee is Simon the Leper. But really? Is that your MO? Just look around - find a Simon - and hey presto. it must prove that there were many betrayers within Jesus' own ranks.
You will need to do better that what you have done so far. This is just too funny.
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?
Another disciple - wow! what do the commentators suggest? Many (most) suggest it was the author of the gospel- John. He didn't like to refer to himself very often putting himself in the third person. 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. Lazarus would have known the high priest due to the nature of his being raised from the dead. He was considered a notorious character but also semi-famous.
I've already indicated what I thought about Judas being known to the high priest. You can go back and have a look. I didn't deny it. Yes I tried to cast doubt on it. but primarily because you just make assertions and I want to see how far you will run with a pet theory. I think it would be highly unlikely that the high priest knowing the dodgy dealing here - would have met with Judas himself - but would rather send someone else to do the dirty work. That's how these sorts of things work. But even if Judas did know the high priest - this doesn't mean that the high priest would just let him into the courtroom.
When I suggest that your logic could imply all 12 were in the betrayal together - I was mocking you. My point was you were attempting to prove too much and it really was a silly argument. I guess that went to the keeper.
Also - is unhelpful for you in this discussion. It might be enough to persuade - those who don't speak Greek and who don't understand ordinary English grammar. But the rest of us - just think you are being silly. Do you have any support whatsoever for this dodgy reading - from an authoritative source - or are you just going to go with "it's in the bible"? Seriously, I thought you were trying to be serious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
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". Do you know the difference between singular and plural? If the writer wanted to suggest both it would have made that clear. You are really clutching at straws here. What might be argued using your logic is that everyone of the 12 betrayed him. Why stop at two?
And I am not denying the bible. I am reading it and the language. Perhaps you should try doing the same
I don't have a particular problem with Simon having another name - but you don't actually show that.
the bible nowhere suggests that Simon betrayed Jesus - or that Judas Iscariot's dad betrayed Jesus either.
the only evidence is that Judas Iscariot did. You so desperately want to believe your story - go for it.
It's just not very convincing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Judas IscariotMatthew 10:4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.Same verse different bible.Matthew 10:4Simon 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?
So two different translations are translating a verse. Both verses are saying the same thing. Judas betrayed Jesus. Neither say Simon betrayed him; just Judas.
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
Yes. 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.
Well we now know the surname of this Simon the Zealot/ Canaanite.don't we.
Nope. Please enlighten us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
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. You have nothing else for the lies and the spin you want to present. A little truth here, a little fact there and suddenly you are the expert. Ok.
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 you're hoping to do.
It's got nothing to do with what I want - this is your narrative and you will produce your guesswork and speculation when you are ready. Once you have prepared the way - then you will strike. That's your motif. that's how you operate. never say anything up front - just squeeze and squeeze and then when you are ready - bang.
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.
Really? Well good for you. I don't care whether someone is atheist. Neutrality is a myth but that is an entirely different subject. Christianity already had a broad range of ideas to how they interpret the scriptures. So, what you are saying is ... ?????
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.
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?
LOL @ you for intentional misrepresentation. I don't have an issue believing the bible. This is true. It is not even an issue for me. Am I comfortable with the way the bible is translated? Yes. Most translations are reasonably good. Yeah they all have their issues - but reasonably good. Ambiguity? I think that is your domain. Are there ambiguous parts in the bible? Absolutely. But to understand what they mean - no one with real sense would start there, would they? Unless your name is Stephen.
I think for the most part the bible is easy to understand. I think for the most part it is pretty crystal clear. Most part doesn't mean every part. There are many parts in the bible which are difficult. Yet it is still the very minority of it. That's why most churches and denominations agree on 95% percent of doctrines. It's only a very small part of disagreement.
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?
Well please try to take me in context. I know you find that difficult - especially when you want to always see the worst of me. But what I have said is this. Is language is either literal or allegorical. It either has a specific purpose in its words or it has an underlying mystical meaning which only some can ascertain.
in my view the bible is written literally. But that doesn't mean we understand that literal is a genre. It means we don't go looking for underlying secrets within its words - that require almost a magical, mystical, or agnostic understanding. The bible has several genres including poetry, historical narrative, gospel, wisdom literature but NOT literal. It has no literal genre. Hence - for an example - God owns the cattle on a 1000 hills has a poetical meaning within a literal context. Not that there are 1000 hills. but that the words have meaning.
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? .
Speculation is something people do without real facts.
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!”
Yes the gospels reveal several lepers receiving a miracle cure from Jesus. Some of the gospels have more than one.
Meanwhile I will endeavour reveal the identity of these "certain accusers" with BIBLICAL facts. The BIBLICAL facts that you persistently insist on.
Well that is what I have requested of you on countless occasions, haven't I?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You make me laugh whenever you say - "we are sticking to what the bible actually says". Do you mean in what you call its vague and contradictory manner or as you interpret it?
I didn't raise anything above which is not in the bible.
Lepers can't become pharisees. Mary was a respectful woman from a respectful house and not a sinful woman.
One house was owned by Mary and Martha and Lazarus.
One by Simon the Leper. There is some noise that suggests that Simon was their father.
There is always material to add to the above - only a fool would say that they have comprehensively covered the whole.
But at this point in time, I will leave you to the next place you are attempting to lead us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
- 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.
Created: