What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[sandy whitelinger]

Do you know what the word "assume" means?

The taking up of Mary?

 

[smokydot]

That was my point.

It was Paul's point also (1 Cor 15:17). . .you're in good company!

Or, personally, at least 120 years.

That's cool.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So crucifixion on the 15th means he was crucified on a Sabbath, the first day of Unleavened Bread?

Nope. I answered that right here http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2273573-post407.html

 

[smokydot]

Nope. You're moving the goal posts. You were shown to be wrong, and then you redefined your point; or in other words, moved your goal posts.

You employ the disingenuous.

Also, can you show me where it is implied that Lazarus, or those individuals in Matthew are said to have died again?

Sure. . .in Bible 11:27.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You employ the disingenuous.
Sure. . .in Bible 11:27.

:biglaugh:

 

[smokydot]

Where?

Here.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2276072-post544.html

 

[smokydot]

Um... Which book in the Bible?

The Book of Morticum.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2276072-post544.html

Yeah, that's AFTER fallingblood pointed out that you were moving goal posts.

 

[fallingblood]

You employ the disingenuous.

Of course you would say that. It's easy that to actually debate.

Sure. . .in Bible 11:27.

Maybe Bible 22:infinity.

 

[smokydot]

Yeah, that's AFTER fallingblood pointed out that you were moving goal posts.

You have a marvelous grasp of the obvious.

 

[smokydot]

Of course you would say that. It's easy that to actually debate.
Maybe Bible 22:infinity.

Yeah, it's there also. . .it's referred to in a number of places.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You have a marvelous grasp of the obvious.

Do you remember why you provided that link?

 

[smokydot]

Do you remember why you provided that link?

Do you?

 

[fallingblood]

Yeah, it's there also. . .it's referred to in a number of places.

I'm guessing that means you give up.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you?

Are you as dishonest in real life as you are in the forums?

Really, there's no need for deception here - not only because most of us can see right through it - but honesty makes for better conversation.

You're not representing yourself very well, and if you think otherwise, you're delusional and should be treated as such.

 

[smokydot]

You're ignoring the many saints spoken about in Matthew.

I also like how to twist everything to fit your idea. I point out what you say I'm doing, but in one of your posts, and that's fine. But I do it, it simply is pure conjecture.

You made the wrong application.

You have to make up your mind here.

You have to use the right application here.

And just talking about absence of evidence, which I don't think you fully understand in a historical context, means nothing. It is just a dodge on your part.

Not talking about absence of evidence in an historical context. Talking about it in a Biblical context, where the whole Bible has bearing.

As for reading your post, I did. That's why my response to you was in the manner it was.

And that manner was disingenuous.

 

[smokydot]

Do you know what the word "assume" means?

Do you?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you?

Only in as much as it serves my purposes, which I'm free to redefine and adjust if anyone is able to show that I'm wrong.

 

[Harmonious]

The Book of Morticum.

I've never heard of that before.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've never heard of that before.

I'm hoping that it's a joke.

It can mean "Book of Death" or "Book of the Dead" or something similar..