A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Like I said, truth means nothing to you.
-
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
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Smoky,
You still haven't produced verses from the OT to support these claims.
You can't provide OT references for something else and assume or claim that it proves this post.
You only have books listed, not verses from the OT.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Smoky -
Just because you claim it and can't prove it - that doesn't make it true.
Just because you claim it and can't prove it - that doesn't make it true.
I knew you couldn't show how I misinterpreted the types in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html
which you said there that you could easily do.
Well then. . .what is your view of the NT reports of Jesus' "heresy" regarding the Scriptures. . .which I presented to you in
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2287311-post82.html
in response to your charge there?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I said that I could easily refute the OT references if you provided them.
I'm not going to respond to something else when you can't even give the references to the first issue.
As usual, you're dishonestly changing the subject.
Who-o-o-a there, podna'! . .Nice try, cowboy!
That is not the issue at hand, this is the issue at hand: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html --where you request the verses and all the red letters are.
It's points 1), 2) and 3) there, the types which you said you could easily show I "misinterpret."
Remember, you made it very clear below that you would no longer discuss the former issue with me, and I had to move on.
The only thing I will go back and discuss with you is this issue in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2292356-post952.html, second response, which you panned.
Nice dance step there, cowboy. . .movement seven. . .where you try to jump back for whatever reason to a former topic you wish you hadn't nixed above. . .no, sir.
You said you could easily show my "misinterpretation" of the types in
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html
at points 1), 2) and 3) there.
So put your money where your mouth is, podna'. . .stop the fancy two-steppin. . .and show my "misinterpretation" of the types there. . .but you can't, can you?
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It should be plain to everyone that you're being dishonest.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You are only deceiving yourself.
I REPEATEDLY asked for specific verses for this:
=======
Those OT books need references, and you did refer to "types" (dishonestly changing the post, remember?).
I have repeatedly told you that I can refute you easily IF YOU PROVIDE REFERENCES. As it stands, you're refuting yourself by refusing to provide proof for your claims, and destroying your credibility by lying to cover it up.
Now, when you point to a different post and say that I said I could easily refute it, YOU ARE OPENLY LYING.
Last edited by a moderator:
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Yo - Smoky.
While it is clear that our main dispute is shelved for the nonce, I've been watching the dance between you and angellous.
Listen - You gave a long list of "types" from the OT, and gave the verses from the NT where you think they were fulfilled.
Well and good.
But the one thing you aren't doing is listing the verses in the OT where the types are originally displayed. You listed the books where they could be found, but not the verses.
List the OT verses, and I think the annoying part of this miscommunication will go away.
While it is clear that our main dispute is shelved for the nonce, I've been watching the dance between you and angellous.
Listen - You gave a long list of "types" from the OT, and gave the verses from the NT where you think they were fulfilled.
Well and good.
But the one thing you aren't doing is listing the verses in the OT where the types are originally displayed. You listed the books where they could be found, but not the verses.
List the OT verses, and I think the annoying part of this miscommunication will go away.
Last edited:
Thanks, gal. . .
That requires searching 34 books of the OT to support the NT claims, which I provided regarding them.
There should be no request from a Christian that I prove the NT is true. It's claims alone should be sufficient.
If you link back to his posts in my response, you will see that later he requested OT Scriptures for a short list of types, which I provided here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html
I see no need to search 34 books of the OT for references to prove the NT claims are true, when the short list is adequate to do the same. . .unless
there is another reason for doing so, as I have asserted.
And he still thinks I changed the point when I later edited the post to clarify the word "shows" there. He wasn't up to speed on "types" and didn't realize
that "shows who Jesus is" means in types to those who know what they are.
Last edited:
To quote someone who shall remain nameless: saying it's true doesn't make it true.
Dishonest, you say? . .and lying? . .not according to your second post below. . .now you want to change what you said? . .
why do you now want to return to that instead of addressing what is at hand? . .what's the difference? . .what's the problem?
I can think of only one reason. . .you can't easily show I have "misinterpreted" the types in the issue at hand.
I have given the references to the few OT Scriptures required there for you to examine.
But you know you can't show any "misinterpretation" there. . .at all.
So back to more of the dance. . .movement eight circle. . .argument about the argument, instead of addressing the issue at hand. . .send 'em back in a circle and require more homework of them, require them to search 34 books of the OT for Scriptural references to support the NT claims given of their antitype, before you will be satisfied with the simple issue at hand. . .it's not my job to prove the NT is true. . .so why all the posturing? . .you've wasted more ink dodging the issue at hand than it would have taken just to address its simple three samples. . .right, wrong or indifferent, why not just address them now, instead of continuing a useless argument about the argument?
I can think of only one reason. . .
All hat, no cowboy . . .so stop the two-steppin'. . .address the issue at hand below. . .and put this to bed.
But you can't, can you? . .which is the only logical explanation for your whole charade on the issue at hand.
That is not the issue at hand, this is the issue at hand: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html --where you request the verses and all the red letters are.
It's points 1), 2) and 3) there, the types which you said you could easily show I "misinterpret."
Remember, you made it very clear below that you would no longer discuss the former issue with me, and I had to move on.
The only thing I will go back and discuss with you is this issue in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2292356-post952.html, second response, which you panned.
You said you could easily show my "misinterpretation" of the types in
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html
at points 1), 2) and 3) there.
So put your money where your mouth is, podna'. . .stop the fancy two-steppin. . .and show my "misinterpretation" of the types there. . .but you can't, can you?
Dishonest, you say? . .and lying? . .not according to your second post below. . .now you want to change what you said? . .
why do you now want to return to that instead of addressing what is at hand? . .what's the difference? . .what's the problem?
I can think of only one reason. . .you can't easily show I have "misinterpreted" the types in the issue at hand.
I have given the references to the few OT Scriptures required there for you to examine.
But you know you can't show any "misinterpretation" there. . .at all.
So back to more of the dance. . .movement eight circle. . .argument about the argument, instead of addressing the issue at hand. . .send 'em back in a circle and require more homework of them, require them to search 34 books of the OT for Scriptural references to support the NT claims given of their antitype, before you will be satisfied with the simple issue at hand. . .it's not my job to prove the NT is true. . .so why all the posturing? . .you've wasted more ink dodging the issue at hand than it would have taken just to address its simple three samples. . .right, wrong or indifferent, why not just address them now, instead of continuing a useless argument about the argument?
I can think of only one reason. . .
All hat, no cowboy . . .so stop the two-steppin'. . .address the issue at hand below. . .and put this to bed.
But you can't, can you? . .which is the only logical explanation for your whole charade on the issue at hand.
Who-o-o-a there, podna'! . .Nice try, cowboy!
That is not the issue at hand, this is the issue at hand: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html --where you request the verses and all the red letters are.
It's points 1), 2) and 3) there, the types which you said you could easily show I "misinterpret."
Remember, you made it very clear below that you would no longer discuss the former issue with me, and I had to move on.
The only thing I will go back and discuss with you is this issue in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2292356-post952.html, second response, which you panned.
Nice dance step there, cowboy. . .movement seven. . .where you try to jump back for whatever reason to a former topic you wish you hadn't nixed above. . .no, sir.
You said you could easily show my "misinterpretation" of the types in
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html
at points 1), 2) and 3) there.
So put your money where your mouth is, podna'. . .stop the fancy two-steppin. . .and show my "misinterpretation" of the types there. . .but you can't, can you?
Last edited:
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
You know...
I'm not Christian, and in order to follow this line of reasoning, I request that you post them for me.
Or for people who are searching for a Christian understanding and might possibly be swayed by your arguments if they knew what you are talking about.
The thing you need to remember is that the person you are debating is NOT the only reader.
I've received random frubals (for which I'm grateful) from people I've never heard from before because they weren't part of the conversation, but they read what I wrote and told me that I gave a useful answer to something they were thinking.
Even if you don't think angellous needs the list, make the list anyway. Even if the dispute isn't resolved, and even you are argued with regarding your sources, supplying those sources adds gravitas to your argument.
It doesn't mean that people will agree, but it DOES mean that people will know what page you are honestly on.
Last edited:
You make a good argument, Harmonious.
Okay. . .I'll post some off the top of the list for now, but please do not ask me to defend them, because my only defense is the NT's claims regarding them,
which you do not believe.
Some do not have a specific NT reference, as in Gen 3:15, but nevertheless, the NT reports make the connection obvious,
depending on how complete is your grasp of the Scriptures (big qualifier there).
I will explain their meaning further if you need it, but don't expect me to defend the NT claims. The NT is a matter of faith to me, not a matter of proof.
GENESIS 3:15 -- promised seed of the woman -- Lk 1:31-34
EXODUS 12:1-6 -- Passover Lamb -- 1 Co 5:7
---19:20, 24:38 -- Lawgiver -- Mt 5:23-47, 12:7-8, 19:9, 21:23-27, chp 23
-20:19 (Dt 5:5) -- Mediator -- Heb 8:6-13, 9:15
-32:9-14, 30-34 -- Intercessor -- Heb 7:25
LEVITICUS 21:10, 21-23 -- High Priest -- Heb 7:24-28, 9:11
-------------3:1-5 -- atoning sacrifice -- Heb 7:27, 9:28, 10:1-2
-------------1:5, 3:2, 8, 13 -- blood which cleanses from all sin -- 1 Jn 1:7
NUMBERS 20:11 (Ex 17:6) -- rock which was struck (crucifixion), and was source of provision -- 1 Co 10:4
-------------14:14 (Ex 13:21-22) -- pillar of fire and cloud, God's presence among his people; Emmanuel -- Mt 1:22-23
--------------------(Ex 14:22-29) -- baptized into their mediator, deliverer, and leader (Moses) in the cloud and in the sea, depicting their submission to him -- 1 Co 10:1-2
DEUTERONOMY 19:18 -- prophet like Moses who was to come -- Jn 6:14-15, 2:45, 21
JOSHUA 1:5-11 -- captain of our salvation, leading God's people into their promised inheritance (salvation) -- Heb 2:10
Edit: RUTH 2:20, 3:9, 4:1,14 -- GOEL, kinsman redeemer (Lev 25:48-49) -- Mt 1:21; Gal 4:5; 1 Pe 1:18-19
I will entertain questions for purposes of understanding, not for purposes of defending NT claims.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It's not a miscommunication. It's deliberate deception on the part of smoky.
Wherever he plagiarized it from did not provide the references, so he's been stalling and whining...
.... and his un-named source also gave no defense, so he's refusing to defend himself or his claims, hiding behind his misunderstandings of the NT.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Amazing.
But this may reveal why you don't have access to the truth.
In order to access truth, you must be honest with yourself, God, and others.
It's a simple fact that I'll know more about the NT that you ever will, and I'll keep going beyond you even faster the more you can't face truth.
The issue of "type" is elementary, but even so you have waffled from the OT books to the three specific traditional types. I think that you realize in your first list that you have no types (or at least it's not what you thought you were saying).
In the sum of all arrogance - or perhaps pathological lying - you have thought that your lies equal the truth of the NT.
Such self-deceit is impressive, but depressing.
I'd love to have an honest conversation with you.
EDIT: So, it's as I said. . .you can't easily show my "misinterpretion" of the types in the issue at hand. . .but of course, that's only because they are "traditional types."
EDIT: More argument about the argument. . .
To quote a famous personage who shall remain nameless: just because you say it's true doesn't make it true.
So. . .that there are types in the OT with corresponding anti-types in the NT is a lie? . .that would be in agreement with your erroneous claims here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285002-post913.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html -- at your second quote there
Therefore, in light of your erroneous claims there, I presented some "non-existent types" claimed by the NT writers, to show they did, in fact, exist.
Now you maintain that those "non-existent types"--Passover Lamb, High Priest, sacrifice, mediator, cleansing blood--are "traditional types."
Okay. ..are these also "traditional types?"
EXODUS 32:9-14, 30-34 -- Intercessor -- Heb 7:25
NUMBERS 20:11 (Ex 17:6) -- rock which was struck (crucifixion), and was source of sustenance -- 1 Co 10:4
--------------------(Ex 14:22-29) -- baptized into their mediator, deliverer and leader in the cloud and in the sea, depicting their submission to him -- 1 Co 10:1-2
DEUTERONOMY 19:18 -- prophet like Moses who was to come -- Jn 6:4-15, 2:45, 21
JOSHUA 1:5-11 -- captain of our salvation leading God's people into the promised inheritance (salvation) -- Heb 2:10
RUTH 2:20, 3:9, 4:1,14 -- GOEL, kinsman redeemer (Lev 25:48-49) -- Mt 1:21; Gal 4:5; 1 Pe 1:18-19
So where do these types leave your claims in the above links negating types?
You engage in too much mockery, ridicule, scoffing, intellectual pride and disdain for me to trust you with that.
Last edited:
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
esmith
Veteran Member
According to the "Jewish Study Bible" your references make no sense. As a matter of fact Exodus 34:38 does not exist. Exodus 34:35 is the last verse. You appear to take verses from the Bible and assign whatever meaning to them that you want. I could take almost any book and read anything into it you wanted.
Last edited: