What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[angellous_evangellous]

ok fallingblood,

I'll go with the traditional Christian interpretation.... Jesus was crucified on Thursday, died Friday morning, and rose from the dead on Sunday morning.

How that works into 3 days, I don't know.... but like I said earlier, Christians have worked three persons into one God.

 

[smokydot]

There's nothing to refute!
Your statements are quite obviously false, and I ask for references so that everyone can know exactly where your falsehoods lie.
Since you are unable to provide references, we must conclude that you're just arbitrarily making stuff up.

The argument below shows your flagrant "lack of honesty" regarding it--all references are presented there.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html

And why should we trust that your edits are to correct typos when we've already seen how your edits are done to deceive, misdirect, and misrepresent

More of the dance. . .movement nine again. . .dig up anything you can, level false charges. . .to discredit the other guy's argument rather than address the argument itself, above.

Heck, at this point I'd be happy for you to admit where you plagiarized your original list from.

When taking notes in a Sunday school class becomes plagiarzing, then I plagiarized them from the Sunday school teacher. . .Ralph Neighbors was his name.

Does the "decency to be honest with me" of http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285018-post918.html

extend to acknowledging your foolish, ignorant, reckless and all-encompassing denial of Scriptural types, which show the unity of the whole Bible, in

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html ? . . .didn't think so.

 

[smokydot]

I wouldn't make a habit out of lying and stealing - it's bad for credibility and worse before the Lord.
I can effortlessly spot plagiarism from Master's students and you don't do it any better than them.
One can only wonder what else you've stolen. And even worse than this: this isn't the first time for you!

All false charges. . .not the first time they've been made. . .from one who has been proven wrong three times now, and will not acknowlege any of them. . .
false charges are the way he explains being on the wrong side of the arguments below:

1) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2227477-post1521.html -- Human Life Begins at Conception

2) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277815-post713.html -- Correct Translation of the Greek parthenos--virgin or young maiden

3) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html -- There are no types in Scripture; that is an antiquated approach; the "types" simply aren't there;
the construction of a "type" in interpreting the Scripture is artificial and reckless

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The argument below shows your flagrant "lack of honesty" regarding it--all references are presented there.

When have you mentioned Oral Roberts, the sermon from which you stole your original list?

The post you referred to was posted yesterday, and your original plagiarism was several days before....

It's truly remarkable that you obstinately refuse to come clean.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

All false charges. . .not the first time they've been made. . .from one who has been proven wrong three times now, and will not acknowlege any of them. . .
false charges are the way he explains being on the wrong side of the arguments below:

1) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2227477-post1521.html -- Human Life Begins at Conception

2) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277815-post713.html -- Correct Translation of the Greek parthenos--virgin or young maiden

3) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html -- There are no types in Scripture; that is an antiquated approach; the "types" simply aren't there;
the construction of a "type" in interpreting the Scripture is artificial and reckless

Um, no. I provided the sources when you refused to. It's really an open and shut case of plagiarism when I can present material written by someone else that matches exactly or very closely what you have written without giving credit. And yes, I quote you before you have a chance to delete or edit your posts to make it seem as if you haven't stolen it.

You even defended your right to plagiarize! :thud:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

All false charges. . .not the first time they've been made. . .from one who has been proven wrong three times now, and will not acknowlege any of them. . .
false charges are the way he explains being on the wrong side of the arguments below:

1) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2227477-post1521.html -- Human Life Begins at Conception

2) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277815-post713.html -- Correct Translation of the Greek parthenos--virgin or young maiden

3) http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html -- There are no types in Scripture; that is an antiquated approach; the "types" simply aren't there;
the construction of a "type" in interpreting the Scripture is artificial and reckless

1) That has nothing to do with this thread

2) You never proved that you did not plagiarize from an interlinear

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2276996-post629.html

3) You were unable to substantiate your original list because your plagiarized source (Oral Roberts' sermon) did not provide OT references. There's no way that you can argue that you have not stolen this material because it's clearly seen in the source.

You, who pretend to put so much weight on facts, are condemned by the simplest fact available. We have easily accessible word-for-word, undeniable proof that you have copied from another source pretending that it was yours. That is stealing, lying, and intellectually unacceptable.

If you've lied on so much other material, how can we trust anything else that you write?

I understand that your faith demands that you lie to preserve it, but if you change your ways and walk in honesty, you can access a much deeper level. You don't need to become a "progressive Christian," you can just become a more honest one.

 

[smokydot]

When have you mentioned Oral Roberts, the sermon from which you stole your original list?
The post you referred to was posted yesterday, and your original plagiarism was several days before....
It's truly remarkable that you obstinately refuse to come clean.

I haven't. . .because I didn't. . .which was just explained here: http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2297642-post1022.html in the bold type.

More of the dance. . .movement ten. . .keep going in circles rather than reading very recent responses. . .something of which you are fond of accusing me.

And any "plagiarizing" going on in regard to Oral Roberts was by my Sunday school teacher, not me. See above link.
I'm not a fan of Oral Roberts, knew nothing of his authorship of that list. . .but I will have to say. . .This one ain't bad!

However, among us lovers of the Bible, using one another's material is not viewed as "plagiarizing" unless you sell it. . .it's viewed as sharing understanding
of God's Word written. . .of which you have amply demonstrated how little you actually have. . .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And any "plagiarizing" going on in regard to Oral Roberts was by my Sunday school teacher, not me.

What? Is your Sunday School teacher posting on RF using your account?

You should inform him of forum rules.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Pray tell, did your Sunday School teacher also plagiarize from the interlinear?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Smoky,

You're like the guy on COPs who's running from the law. We know that he's innocent until proven guilty, but he's just been video-taped stealing a car, running from the police, and then arrested.

Sure, he'll lie and try to wiggle his way out of the obvious misdeeds that he's done. But it's clear to everyone he is guilty and will pay the price.

The difference between this criminal and you is simply this: maybe someday this crook will admit to himself and his parole board that he has made a mistake and he will try to do better with a second chance.

But your delusion that you're right is so powerful that you're convinced that you've done nothing wrong despite the clearest evidence possible.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

All I can say is: 'bout damn time.

 

[smokydot]

When have you mentioned Oral Roberts, the sermon from which you stole your original list?
The post you referred to was posted yesterday, and your original plagiarism was several days before....
It's truly remarkable that you obstinately refuse to come clean.

I haven't. . .because I didn't. . .which was just explained here: http:www.religiousforums.com/forum/2297642-post1022.html in the bold type.

More of the dance. . .movement ten. . .keep going in circles rather than reading very recent responses. . .something of which you are fond of accusing me.

And any "plagiarizing" going on in regard to Oral Roberts was by my Sunday school teacher, not me. See above link.
I'm not a fan of Oral Roberts, knew nothing of his authorship of that list. . .but I will have to say. . .This one ain't bad!

However, among us lovers of the Bible, using one another's material is not viewed as "plagiarizing" unless you sell it. . .it's viewed as sharing understanding
of God's Word written. . .of which you have amply demonstrated how little you actually have. . .

 

[smokydot]

Smoky,
You're like the guy on COPs who's running from the law. We know that he's innocent until proven guilty, but he's just been video-taped stealing a car, running from the police, and then arrested.
Sure, he'll lie and try to wiggle his way out of the obvious misdeeds that he's done. But it's clear to everyone he is guilty and will pay the price.
The difference between this criminal and you is simply this: maybe someday this crook will admit to himself and his parole board that he has made a mistake and he will try to do better with a second chance.
But your delusion that you're right is so powerful

That's a very good description of your prejudice, bias and false accusations on the point. . .

 

[smokydot]

What? Is your Sunday School teacher posting on RF using your account?

Think, man, think! . .beyond your pettiness.

They are from my notes taken in Sunday school class long ago.
The teacher, Ralph Neighbors, did not give a source, nor did I care.
I was happy to learn from him.

You should inform him of forum rules.

You should think!

 

[smokydot]

Pray tell, did your Sunday School teacher also plagiarize from the interlinear?

He probably did when he gave the meaning of GOEL.

But I was more interested in learning from him than accusing him of "plagiarizing."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's a very good description of your prejudice, bias and false accusations on the point. . .

Like I said, we have incontrovertible proof of your lies, and you're too delusional to admit it.

By the way, just because you didn't know who the author was, doesn't mean that you're not plagiarizing. You were still presenting someone else's work as your own. That's why plagiarism is both stealing and lying.

Just because you don't think you committed plagiarism doesn't change the fat.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Think, man, think! . .beyond your pettiness.

They are from my notes taken in Sunday school class long ago.
The teacher, Ralph Neighbors, did not give a source, nor did I care.
I was happy to learn from him.
You should think!

I think for a living, mate.

You're obviously the one refusing to think - mindlessly and recklessly copying stuff.

 

[smokydot]

All I can say is: 'bout damn time.

Not until we established the foolishness and ignorance of your claims that
"there are no 'types' in Scripture,"
"that is an antiquated approach"
"the 'types' are just not there"
"the construction of a 'type' in interpreting the Scripture is artificial and reckless"

Now that your foolishness and ignorance on the subject of types have been established,
your denial of them as they are presented in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299585-post1071.html will be seen to be what it is--just more foolishness and ignorance.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not until we established the foolishness and ignorance of your claims that
"there are no 'types' in Scripture,"
"that is an antiquated approach"
"the 'types' are just not there"
"the construction of a 'type' in interpreting the Scripture is artificial and reckless"

Now that your foolishness and ignorance on the subject of types have been established,
your denial of them as they are presented in post #1032 will be seen to be what it is--just more foolishness and ignorance.

Why should I give you more of my knowledge (teaching requires compassion, btw), you who care nothing for the truth?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, I forgot to mention... it would speed up the process if you let me know if you stole those references (and what your source was) or if you managed to find them yourself.

I'm working now on finding your source, so if it's stolen, I will find it.