I think it means prevarication. . .I don't do open-ended.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Day was Jesus Crucified?
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
This is why I gave my assessment back in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2273573-post407.html.
As far as the NT is concerned Yeshua was crucified on the Passover Preparation but removed from the cross before the Sabbath. While it was still the Passover Preparation he was laid in the tomb and it was sealed with the stone. It is recorded in their scripture that the women came to the tomb (the morning of the first day of the week).
Since the Sabbath is Friday (evening) to Saturday (evening) then it stands to reason that the women came to the tomb during a Jewish first day of the week where their bible says that the women came to the tomb during the rising of the sun. This, to me, sounds like Saturday (evening), the start of the first day of the week but rising of the sun would be that Sunday (morning). Any way you look at it...his crucifixion has been established and most interesting is he was never in the tomb for 3 days or 3 nights......
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Prevarication: speak or act in an evasive way
I think I showed that quite well, when I clearly showed that you were moving the goal posts. Plus, all of the dodges that you use, I think that also satisfies.
First, we are talking about resurrection in a Jewish context. Jesus was a Jew, his message was for Jews, the writers of the Gospels were Jews (for the most part). The resurrection has to be understood in a Jewish context.
Also, that isn't an argument anyways. You never said no one had been resurrected. You stated: None before or since have risen from the dead.
Clearly, you were wrong. Then you changed your meaning once that was pointed out. So I thing that would be showing you acting in an evasive way. The definition of prevarication.
Such a lame dodge on your part. Honestly, it's just sad that you have to continue to rely on that.
That doesn't quite make sense. There are many things that simply were never reported. Jesus was never reported in any pagan sources until the second century. He was only briefly mentioned in one Jewish source. If the NT accounts were correct, it's hard to believe that such an extraordinary individual would not be reported by anyone during his time.
It's hard to believe that no one besides Matthew mentions a bunch of dead saints being resurrected, who talked with other people.
It's hard to believe that no one besides Matthew ever mention the massacre of infants by Herod.
Do you see where this is going? Your defense is weak at best. Oh, and aren't you using the absence of evidence ploy here? I mean, did you not say yourself that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Maybe you want to pay more attention.
You are basing your own opinion on "absence of evidence." Did you not just criticize me for seemingly doing the same? It is just as possible that they ascended into heaven, if they truly were resurrected.
And really, that is all besides the point, as this would only matter if you admit that you moved the goal posts in the first place.
How does saying that Lazarus or the saints in Matthew ascended to heaven discredit the NT record? It doesn't, because the Bible never states that Jesus is the only one who ascended into heaven. In fact, we are told that at least one other had not tasted death, but was brought into heaven.
Do you understand the meaning of the word prevarication? I don't think you do.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I'm still lauging about that. Here we were pointing out moving goal posts, lying, and plagiarism...
... and smoky demands examples of prevarication. :biglaugh:
prevarication:
A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment or repercussion ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevarication
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
If I may shout: There's no need for dishonesty here!! We can have a civil debate without resorting to violence!!
waitasec
Veteran Member
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
didn't he define in the way he answered...?
Are you being sarcastic?
(if not, just go back through the quotes)
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
This wasn't a dodge. I explained why we can not assume that there were non-Jews who followed Jesus. Whether or not there were gentiles in Israel during that time is completely besides the point. There being Arabs in North Dakota doesn't mean that they are Lutheran.
Because I show a flaw in your reasoning, I'm being disingenuous? If you can't debate what I say, just ignore it. That is better than insulting me.
Oh, and I believe that would fit prevarication. You're acting or speaking in an evasive manner. As in, you're dodging the question by insulting me.
Not even logical. Scholars can know that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. It really isn't debated. Why you may ask? It is because scholars can compare the Greek, and see that parts were copied.
Plus, Luke tells us specifically that he uses sources. So your point is moot.
That's great, because you were using the silence as to what happened to those other resurrected individuals to show that they died a natural death. You're floundering here.
How about you not dismissing Eusebius because he disagreed with you?
What says a lot is that instead of actually debating in a mature manner, you continuously attack those who disagree with you. That's one big reason why I have such a problem with Christians, is because of condescending people like you.
The answers aren't the same. Case in point, you implied the answer no. I specifically stated that my answer was yes. There is a difference there.
Why would I have to abandon logic in that case?
If you aren't willing to pay attention, I'm not going to waste the time to keep you up to date.
Nope. We know that some of Paul's letters were written after he is said to have died. We know that some of the letters attributed to Paul were not written by him. If you did even the briefest amount of research on the subject, if you looked at any of the scholarship, you wouldn't need to make such a lame attempt to discredit it.
Honestly that is your defense? Do you understand how dumb it is? All you're doing is showing that you will not actually take the time to read and understand what is being said. Instead, you have to resort to childish name calling and condescending remarks.
Of course, because you've never read any of the scholarship. You admit that yourself. And can you show me where the Gospels say who they are written by? No you can't. Instead, all you can do is make condescending remarks.
You've never shown that I don't read your posts. More so, you've shown, beyond a doubt, that you simply don't read. Because if you did, you know it would destroy any argument you had.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I think he was being sarcastic. Because the way Smoky answered the question can be seen as a sign of prevarication.
I didn't realize that by "read" you were asking for my personal translation.
I thought you wanted to know if I knew its meaning, since the meaning of parthenos was the issue there.
I replied giving its meaning, which is what I understood you to be requesting.
Giving the meaning of the Greek from a translation is not plagairizing.
Not as much as I wonder why you have so much vested in misunderstanding me. . .and accusing me falsely.
It has all the signs of discrediting me in lieu of conclusively discrediting my arguments.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
OK think carefully about this.
I asked if you could READ the text, and I provided a verse.
You replied with a plagiarized translation. Plagiarism is copying from a book and pretending that it is your own. Had you cited a source, it would not have been plagiarism, because you would have given credit to someone else for the reading. But that would demonstrate that you didn't know what you were talking about.
And I don't need to discredit you, you're doing a fine job of that on your own. I just hate it when people lie to me.
I thought the meaning is what we were after, in light of the issue being the meaning of parthenos, therefore nothing else was relevant to the translation of parthenos.
Do you?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That doesn't justify open dishonesty.
When I asked if you could read it, you should have just said, "no."
Agreed.
Claiming the moral "high ground". . .very righteous.
I implore you to abandon your need to discredit me so that you can consider, without prejudice and bias, the facts I am presenting on this.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Only in so much as it is both Shabbat and Yom Tov (holiday) at the same time.
However, the Shabbat before Passover is always called Shabbat Hagadol, or the Great Sabbath.
Last edited:
Latter day doesn't mean last year.Really? You really have no clue about Christian history.