What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[smokydot]

False assumptions?
Your movement of goalposts couldn't be clearer. You even cited the very post that started it.
Your plagiarism is also clear - I provided two links to websites that you could have stolen it from, but it's available in print and elsewhere.
You don't know Greek. That's not an assumption, you proved it.
Take a look at Rev. 21:8.

You're getting your panties all in a wad again. . .

Not to mention, you aren't my judge, Jesus Christ is. . .and I am confident of his assessment of this one.

Take a look at Mt 7:1-2.

 

[smokydot]

He's trying to justify an argument from silence.

I was being factitious in response to fallingblood's disingenuous question in posts #553 and #554.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2276123-post553.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2276136-post554.html

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're getting your panties all in a wad again. . .

Not to mention, you aren't my judge, Jesus Christ is. . .and I am confident of his assessment of this one.

Take a look at Mt 7:1-2.

Yes, Jesus has no problem with lying and stealing.

 

[smokydot]

Angellous is your daddy.

Is mama away?

 

[smokydot]

Yes, Jesus has no problem with lying and stealing.

Or judging. . .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Or judging. . .

Well, I'm not judging, I'm merely pointing out when someone is lying and stealing generally practicing open dishonesty. What happens after that is up to the Lord.

I'm judging the practice, not the person. Like I said, you're probably not this dishonest in person (but who knows?).

 

[outhouse]

Yes, Jesus has no problem with lying and stealing.

and he has no problem with the hoe's lol he loves the hoe's

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is mama away?

Well, you asked.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

and he has no problem with the hoe's lol he loves the hoe's

That made me smile. haha

 

[smokydot]

Well, I'm not judging, I'm merely pointing out when someone is lying and stealing generally practicing open dishonesty. What happens after that is up to the Lord.
I'm judging the practice, not the person. Like I said, you're probably not this dishonest in person (but who knows?).

Show where there is dishonesty, as in prevarication, in practice.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Show where there is dishonesty, as in prevarication, in practice.

sheesh.

Just look at every other post of yours.

 

[smokydot]

sheesh.
Just look at every other post of yours.

Then it should be easy for you to come up with at least three really good examples of egregiousness.

 

[fallingblood]

You made the wrong application.

Your dodging.

You have to use the right application here.

You're still dodging.

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

We are talking about historical accounts. Historical beings. The historical context matters.

And that manner was disingenuous.

Additional dodging.

 

[fallingblood]

That's what his question in post #554 means to me.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2276136-post554.html.

What is its implication to you?

We will start this from the beginning. You stated:

And a good understanding of the NT would help you here.

Not to mention it was the Jewish apostles who believed he was the Messiah.
None before or since have risen from the dead.

I replied:

As for none have risen from the dead before or after? And you criticize my understanding of the NT. What about Lazarus? Or here is a nice little passage. Coming from the NIV, so you have nothing to complain about

Matthew 27: 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

So, we are told others were raised from the dead, as they came back from the dead.

And then you moved the goal posts. You did so by stating this:

All of them to die again. . .Jesus did not die again, he lives forever.

To which I replied:

Where does it say that they died again? Scripture does not say it. By your logic, that would be pure conjecture after 2,000 years.

Plus, you never qualified your post by saying that they had to live forever.

The only defense you have to that is this:

That's speaking from a NT perspective, where referring to Jesus rising from the dead always includes the understanding that he did not die again,
and therefore is not comparable to the child of the Shunamite woman, or to Lazarus.

Again though, you never show where Lazarus, the Shunamite woman, or the saints in Matthew 27:51-53 are ever said to die again. As far as scripture is concerned, they could be like Jesus and never died again. They could be like Jesus and have ascended into Heaven afterwards. Jesus wasn't the first to be taken into heaven, according to scripture, before he died.

So that is where we are. You clearly moved the goal posts, and then made ridiculous defenses.

 

[fallingblood]

Then it should be easy for you to come up with at least three really good examples of egregiousness.

I just posted one, in depth, showing that you lied, or were dishonest to say the least. A_E pointed out where you plagiarized a Greek translation, and lied about knowing Greek. That is three.

 

[Beta]

Sorry, guys. I will post a link from now on. . .and will go back and do the same for as many as I can.

Friend ...please take some friendly advice.
Leave the skeptics and unbelievers to it !!!
They have been arguing and denying Jesus even the Messiah from the very start and will not be convinced until the very end.
They can't help it for their unbelief keeps them ' in blindness ' until the fulness of the gentiles is come in Rom.11v25.
THEN God will set about saving them and take away their sins v26,27.

 

[smokydot]

The only defense you have to that is this:

Agreed.

None of your responses here are the examples I requested of prevarication.
Can you show any prevarication?

However, I will respond to a couple of points.

It never occurred to me that the whole context of the resurrection would not be included in any reference to Jesus' resurrection. For the Christian, one without the other is an incomplete work, as would be the slaugther of the sacrifice at the Temple without the sprinkling of its blood on the altar.
When referring to the sacrifice of an animal, both are understood to be meant.
You are in no position to assert the meaning of resurrection when used by a Christian.

Again though, you never show where Lazarus, the Shunamite woman, or the saints in Matthew 27:51-53 are ever said to die again. As far as scripture is concerned, they could be like Jesus and never died again. They could be like Jesus and have ascended into Heaven afterwards. Jesus wasn't the first to be taken into heaven, according to scripture, before he died.

Agreed.

1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2) If they did not die, but ascended, it's hard to believe such an extraordinary event would not have been reported in the NT accounts, or in accounts of the early church.

3) So with the absence of evidence of such an extraordinary event in all the gospels, Acts, epistles, and testimonies of the early church,
I have no reason to think they ascended, but rather expired in the normal manner at some point later on.

This is simply another latter day novel speculation comprising the futile attempt to discredit the NT record.

So that is where we are. You clearly moved the goal posts, and then made ridiculous defenses.

None of which is prevarication.

Can you show any prevarication?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Can you show any prevarication?

Plagiarism is prevarication.

Lying [obviously] is prevarication.

Changing definitions and pretending like you had them all along is prevarication.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Seriously. Can you not see how weak that statement is (especially with how you use it)?

 

[smokydot]

We have no evidence that the message of Jesus, during his life time, went further than the Jews. In fact, we know that followers of Jesus were required to convert to Judaism.

A complete dodge of the question: "Were there no non-Jews living in Israel at the time?" . . .seems you are guilty of what you like to accuse me, as in the following:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2276495-post613.html

I love how you bring the 2,000 years into this all of the time. Especially when it doesn't regard what you're saying. By the logic you're using, everything in the Gospels really is pure speculations, as we can only view it 2,000 years after the fact. Not logical at all.

The disengenuous is one of your favorite arguments

More so, it's not pure speculation. We know that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark for information. We know that they relied on the Q Gospel for information. The fact that they used sources shows that they were not recalling the information themselves, but were simply basing their views on other sources.

What you know is that you think you have evidence of such. But you cannot prove it without the testimony of the writers.

Yeah, because that makes sense. Maybe you want to actually think before you post.

It makes as much sense as you arguing from silence. . .nonsense was the point.

So moving the goal posts again. When in the face of information you simply can not debate again, all you can do is make a illogical attempt to dismiss the information. That says a lot.

I acknowledged that Eusebius was a church father. What more did you want?

If it weren't for the disengenuous, you would have no arguments at all. . .that says a lot.

So that's a no. It would have been as easy as that. Just say no. Plus, I can actually answer your question. It's a yes, I've read the NT quite a few times. That should be at least partially evident as I quote from the NT and refer to it.

The answers are the same. . .so which are they, yes or no?

So then one should abandon logic in order to get to your understanding? We just have to blindly accept it because why?

No more than one has to abandon logic to understand the OT's report of the Hebrews' slaugtering children.

Didn't A_E address this? I'm quite sure he did.

Where?

Also, some of the writers flat out lied. Some of the letters accredited to Paul, as we now know, were never written by him.

More of that latter day novel speculation in the futile attempt to discredit the NT.

More so, if they the Gospel writers were eye witnesses, why do they have to rely on other sources? Why does Matthew and Luke have to rely so much on the Gospel of Mark and the Q Gospel? They wouldn't if they were eye witnesses.

According to your novel and disingenuous rule, because he didn't see the whole accident, the testimony of the guy who arrives on the scene immediately after the accident cannot be treated as an eye-witness regarding the driver climbing out of his car and fleeing the scene. . .you'd make a lousy lawyer.

More so, the Gospels never tell us who even wrote them. Really, there is no reason to believe that were really eye witnesses.

More of that latter day novel speculation passing itself off as "scholarship."

I'm not wasting my time, wading through 20-30 pages of information, just to find a wasteful post by you. If you really want me to know the information, you will repeat it here. If not, then it is of no real use.

Post #387 is an example of you accusing me of not reading posts: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2273406-post387.html

of which you are likewise guilty: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2275784-post524.html