• 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?

fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
smokydot said:
That's your opinion. Many, many do not share it.
Click to expand...
Many people believed that the Earth was flat at one time. Appealing to what many people believe means very little to me in this regard. Maybe it would be better to address what I stated instead.
Does it look like a copy and paste job?
Click to expand...
Yes, and thus why I stated that.
Assuming 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.
Click to expand...
You added type after my first response. And I still stick to what I previously said. The word type means very little to me, because the OT doesn't speak of Jesus in any form, as I explained. Pretending that type was part of your argument in the first place though is simply dishonest.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Um, no. You're the one who edited your post after the fact and criticized my response.
Click to expand...
You're the one who didn't recognize types when they were presented, and needed it pointed out to you, an indication that you may not have been the only one,
so I edited my post to clarify a point which I had thought to be obvious.

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:
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
connerb said:
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
Click to expand...
Wrong, the NT states that. And really, I can state whatever I want about the OT and it doesn't make it so.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
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?
Click to expand...
1) The impossible situation of your ignorance regarding types?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284877-post882.html

2) So now you agree these are types of Jesus after all, after all that denial of them?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284919-post893.html

3) 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:
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
smokydot said:
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?

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
Click to expand...
Well, by your logic, I could link those 66 documents to myself as well. Maybe the OT and NT are all talking about me. I mean, I can do the same exact thing you're doing and make it sound as if the Bible revolves around me. Not too hard.

As for a collection of work, compilations of poetry do it all of the time. Have you ever read a poetry book? There can be hundreds of documents that are linked by their types and anti-types of the same person, or idea. It means very little really. More so, the Bible doesn't revolve around Jesus anyway.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
You're the one who didn't recognize types when they were presented, and needed it pointed out to you, an indication that you may not have been the only one, so I edited my post to clarify a point which I thought to be obvious.

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
Click to expand...

You didn't present them as such! That's your responsibility.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
smokydot said:
You're the one who didn't recognize types when they were presented, and needed it pointed out to you, an indication that you may not have been the only one, so I edited my post to clarify a point which I thought to be obvious.

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
Click to expand...
Your assertion is groundless times infinity. Ha, I win because you can't beat the infinity times. And since mine is said more than yours, I win. Because after all, repeating oneself an infinite amount of times has to make them right.

Also, you edited you post because you saw you were wrong, so you tried to create a separate idea to save your sinking idea. And then instead of actually supporting your idea, you just repeated yourself like a broken record player. But then again, I win since I said my position more than you. See the time infinity comment above.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
It is very telling when someone cannot defent their position honestly.

If they have to lie, cheat, and steal to sustain their arguement - if only to themselves - it's pretty safe to assume that they had no honest ground to stand on in the first place.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
fallingblood said:
Your assertion is groundless times infinity. Ha, I win because you can't beat the infinity times. And since mine is said more than yours, I win. Because after all, repeating oneself an infinite amount of times has to make them right.

Also, you edited you post because you saw you were wrong, so you tried to create a separate idea to save your sinking idea. And then instead of actually supporting your idea, you just repeated yourself like a broken record player. But then again, I win since I said my position more than you. See the time infinity comment above.
Click to expand...

That's a good one!
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Hey fallingblood,

I'm just glad that I have the original post in a quote of mine where smokydot can't touch it.

It's so rewarding to catch someone red-handed, and frustrating when you can prove the lie.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
And so you think the types in Scripture are an insult to your intelligence?

Very interesting. . .
Click to expand...

haha, no.

You saying that we didn't understand what a "type" was - which you completely failed to establish anyway - that was an insult to our intelligence.

Your misguided interpretations of Scripture are not Scripture itself. There are no types in Scripture - that is an antiquated approach to interpretation that the Church disgarded after Augustine (and it wasn't popular before him, either). Imagining types have been fun for a few evangelicals of late, but that's all it is. Just a bit of entertainment.

I'm not going to elaborate with you on the nature of Scripture, so stop asking. You've missed your chance on that. If I talk about it, it will be one on one with someone else and you will be well come to read the thread.
 
N

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Guys, guys... I know the whole question of when Jesus was crucified is contentious, but I think we can all agree that when it happened all of the disciples favorite tv shows were pre-empted by the news and the schools were closed too.

Right?
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
Well, by your logic, I could link those 66 documents to myself as well. Maybe the OT and NT are all talking about me. I mean, I can do the same exact thing you're doing and make it sound as if the Bible revolves around me. Not too hard.
Click to expand...
I would like to see a few examples of that. . .
As for a collection of work, compilations of poetry do it all of the time. Have you ever read a poetry book? There can be hundreds of documents that are linked by their types and anti-types of the same person, or idea. It means very little really. More so, the Bible doesn't revolve around Jesus anyway.
Click to expand...
So says you. . .
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
Your assertion that the Bible is not a whole, as shown in the following link, remains groundless.
Click to expand...

Despite what you think about my "groundless claim," at least I have had the decency to be honest with you.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
It is very telling when someone cannot defent their position honestly.
If they have to lie, cheat, and steal to sustain their arguement - if only to themselves - it's pretty safe to assume that they had no honest ground to stand on in the first place.
Click to expand...
So the types in Scripture are not honest ground now?

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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top