-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What Day was Jesus Crucified?
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
If you knew what a type was, it would have been self evident.That does nothing to establish whatever it was that you were trying to do with your list.
You didn't even have "type" listed in the post when I replied to it.
You really don't know what a type is, do you?And it doesn't change the fact that you provide no OT references.
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as is shown in the following link, remains groundless.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
ThaAssuming you even know what a type is, the evidence speaks for itself in the following link and requires no further defense. Each can judge for himself.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
Assuming you can provide examples of the type in the OT...
That wouldn't prove anything, either, because we can find "types" of Christ in many different works of ancient literature, but I would think that you wouldn't place these writings in the Bible...
You're in trouble there, connerb.the old testament says that in the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God. that same Word was made flesh as Jesus so much of the old testament is about Jesus but just does not call him by name
That's the NT.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
If you knew what a type was, it would have been self evident.
You really don't know what a type is, do you?
Yeah, I do. And finding fault with me for not anticipating your stupidity is as sleazy and dishonest as editing the post to say something entirely different after the fact.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Oh and by the way, smoky, a "type" is not rocket science.
If you're trying to insult someone's intelligence, you might not appear so much like a fool if you were addressing something on a higher level of thinking.
If you're trying to insult someone's intelligence, you might not appear so much like a fool if you were addressing something on a higher level of thinking.
Very interesting. . .this is pathetic.Assuming you can provide examples of the type in the OT...
That wouldn't prove anything, either, because we can find "types" of Christ in many different works of ancient literature, but I would think that you wouldn't place these writings in the Bible...
The Chronicles of Narnia typify (symbolize) Christ.
Is there a rule that types must be limited to specific writings?
Do you have anywhere else a collection of 66 documents linked by their types (symbols) and anti-types (symbols realized) of the same person?
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as is shown in the following link, is still groundless.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You really don't know what a type is, do you?
You know, I got to thinking about this, and it will become abundantly obvious when you try to give references that YOU don't know what a type is.
You just thoughtlessly looked for a word that would let you slither out of your first statement.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Very interesting. . .this is pathetic.
The Chronicles of Narnia typify (symbolize) Christ.
Is there a rule that types must be limited to specific writings?
Do you have anywhere else a collection of 66 documents linked by their types (symbols) and anti-types (symbols realized) of the same person?
Really? That's the best that you can do?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Very interesting. . .this is pathetic.
The Chronicles of Narnia typify (symbolize) Christ.
Is there a rule that types must be limited to specific writings?
Do you have anywhere else a collection of 66 documents linked by their types (symbols) and anti-types (symbols realized) of the same person?
That was my point. There's no reason for you to exclude the Chronicles of Narnia from the Bible based on your criteria.
There is no shortage of writings from the ancient world that you can lie about and find types of Christ.
Hmmm. . .so you know what a type is, yet you tried to deny the overwhelming evidence of them in the link below.Yeah, I do. And finding fault with me for not anticipating your stupidity is as sleazy and dishonest as editing the post to say something entirely different after the fact.
Very interesting. . .
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as is shown in the link below, is groundless.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
Last edited:
Bringin' out all the guns now?Oh and by the way, smoky, a "type" is not rocket science.
If you're trying to insult someone's intelligence, you might not appear so much like a fool if you were addressing something on a higher level of thinking.
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as is shown in the following link, is still groundless.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Hmmm. . .so you know what a type is, yet you tried to deny the overwhelming evidence of them in the link below.
Very interesting. . .
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
The only interesting thing is the lengths to which you will go to preserve your dishonesty.
YOU HAVE NO REFERENCES FROM THE OLD TESTEMENT.
There's only a few NT references connected to an OT book, and that does nothing to prove your point.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Bringin' out all the guns now?
Um, no. You're the one who edited your post after the fact and criticized my response.
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as is shown in the following link, is still groundless.You know, I got to thinking about this, and it will become abundantly obvious when you try to give references that YOU don't know what a type is.
You just thoughtlessly looked for a word that would let you slither out of your first statement.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as shown in the following link, is still groundless.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
But we aren't talking about that, are we?
First you tried to get out of an impossible situation through forgery, and now you're diverting attention back to something else that requires no defense?
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as is shown in the following link, remains groundless.Really? That's the best that you can do?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as shown in the following link, is still groundless.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
Now that's a nice little shift of gears after you tried to insult everyone's intelligence with your "type" business.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as shown in the following link, remains groundless.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
Ah, now you're just repeating yourself.
Pathetic.
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as is shown in the following link, remains groundless.That was my point. There's no reason for you to exclude the Chronicles of Narnia from the Bible based on your criteria.
There is no shortage of writings from the ancient world that you can lie about and find types of Christ.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284573-post873.html
Last edited: