What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[angellous_evangellous]

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

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[smokydot]

That's possible.

Was the first day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, always a Sabbath?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Where?

I'll save ya'll some time:

1) The Gospels all show signs of development. None of them were written down all at one time as they appear in the canon - stuff was added and taken out of the course of many years before they were sent out from the churches that created them. If there is an eyewitness testimony, it is encased in later theology and editing, and most likely not very substantive.

2) I told you so.

.... and the next three pages or so.

 

[Harmonious]

Was the first day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, always a Sabbath?

No. It always falls out on either Saturday night and Sunday, Monday night and Tuesday, Wednesday night and Thursday, or Shabbat.

 

[smokydot]

I just posted one, in depth, showing that you lied, or were dishonest to say the least.

None are the examples I requested of prevarication.

A_E pointed out where you plagiarized a Greek translation, and lied about knowing Greek. That is three.

He is operating from false assumptions.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2276457-post611.html

First, I said that "I could read the text." Greek is not the only language in which they are printed.
He assumed I meant Greek.

Second, it is not plagriarization to use any of the many translations of Greek available
He assumed I was claiming personal translation from the Greek.

Third, that I lied.
He assumed it was evident to me that he meant for me to personally translate the Greek.

All false assumptions based on my simple statement: "I can read the text."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

None are the examples I requested of prevarication.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/-post.html

He is operating from false assumptions:

First, I said that "I could read the text." Greek is not the only language in which they are printed.
He assumed I meant Greek.

Second, it is not plagriarization to use any of the many translations of Greek available
He assumed I was claiming personal translation from the Greek.

Third, that I lied.
He assumed it was evident to me that he meant for me to personally translate the Greek.

All false assumptions based on my simple statement: "I can read the text."

It's a pretty strong assumption when you say "I can read the text" and then provide a plagiarized translation.

[it most certainly is plagiarism if you steal it from a book and pretend like it's yours]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

None are the examples I requested of prevarication.

What do you think "prevarication" means?

 

[smokydot]

It's a pretty strong assumption when you say "I can read the text" and then provide a plagiarized translation.
it most certainly is plagiarism if you steal it from a book and pretend like it's yours]

Yes, it is. . .all conditioned on your if. . .which was not the case.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2276973-post625.html

 

[angellous_evangellous]

None are the examples I requested of prevarication.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2274406-post461.html

He is operating from false assumptions:

First, I said that "I could read the text." Greek is not the only language in which they are printed.
He assumed I meant Greek.

Second, it is not plagriarization to use any of the many translations of Greek available
He assumed I was claiming personal translation from the Greek.

Third, that I lied.
He assumed it was evident to me that he meant for me to personally translate the Greek.

All false assumptions based on my simple statement: "I can read the text."

More lies and deceit. I didn't assume that you were talking about Greek - I asked you to read it.

I wonder if you can read this

οὗτοί εἰσιν οἳ μετὰ γυναικῶν οὐκ ἐμολύνθησαν, παρθένοι γάρ εἰσιν.

To which you replied, pretending that you could read Greek, stealing it from another source:

"These are who with women not were defiled, virgins (celibates) for they are."

Meaning: These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins (celibates).

Does it matter?

To which I replied:

Plagiarism is a crime, and against forum rules.

I do this for a living, and I can spot lies like this from miles away.

I've found two interliniars that give your translation -

Mastering the Bible - Revelation 14:1-5
and

Westcott-Hort - www.embarl.force9.co.uk/Revelation/Rev_14_PDF.pdf

I wonder: are you even capable of being honest?

 

[smokydot]

Plagiarism is prevarication.
Lying [obviously] is prevarication.
Changing definitions and pretending like you had them all along is prevarication.

None have been demonstrated. . .they have all been falsely assumed, as explained previously in:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2276973-post625.html

 

[angellous_evangellous]

None have been demonstrated. . .they have all been falsely assumed.

I provided the source!

 

[smokydot]

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

The truth of it is what counts in the statement: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm sure it's a real thorn in the side of those who would try to discredit the NT by arguing from silence.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, here's your defense for plagiarism:

If you are in a position to determine that my translation is correct, nothing else matters or is relevant to it.

So the ends justifies the means.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's truth is what counts.

I'm sure it's a real thorn in the side of those who would try to discredit the NT by arguing from silence.

Do you want to continue being the one who encases his "truth" with lies?

 

[smokydot]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

In your dreams. . .and ad hominem

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Some ancient and modern Christians have said that it's ok to lie or deceive as long as it's in an attempt to coax others into believing in Christ. You may have that belief, or you truly may be as clueless about the topics about which you speak that you can't tell the difference between truth and untruth.

In any case, dishonest Christians have severely harmed the perception of our integrity among non-believers, so much so that we're basically viewed as idiots. As you know, evangelical Christians lie about science and the nature of the Bible. Charismatics have lied about money. Roman Catholics have lied about the sex scandals.

I implore you to know yourself, be honest first with yourself, and then be honest with the evidence, and then with the people you debate.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In your dreams. . .

Well, you're using it consistently in a non-sensical way.

 

[smokydot]

I'll save ya'll some time:
.... and the next three pages or so.

That's all part of that latter day invention to discredit the testimony of the NT.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's all part of that latter day invention to discredit the testimony of the NT.

Your posts?

 

[smokydot]

No. It always falls out on either Saturday night and Sunday, Monday night and Tuesday, Wednesday night and Thursday, or Shabbat.

I didn't mean that it was always a Saturday Sabbath.

Did the fact that it was the first day of Unleavened Bread make it a special Sabbath?