• 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?

S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
Who says I don't believe the NT? I never stated that. So you're just making a lame excuse to not address the issue as we both know that the NT isn't saying what you claim it does.
Click to expand...
Do you believe the central NT claim that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah?

Then you don't believe the NT.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
There's nothing to refute!
Your statements are quite obviously false,
Click to expand...
Quite obviously false, you say? . .Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Whose statements are false here? http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html --There are no types in Scripture; that is an antiquated approach;
the "types" are just not there; the construction of a "type" in interpreting Scripture is artificial and reckless
and I ask for references so that every one can know exactly where your falsehoods lie.
Click to expand...
Your references are here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299585-post1070.html

So where do "the falsehoods lie?"
Since you are unable to provide references, we must conclude thaat you're just arbitrarily making stuff up.
Click to expand...
Like I made stuff up in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2273397-post386.html ?

So back up your most recent false charges and show in the first link above where

1) the statements are not Scriptural, but are false, and that

2) I "just arbitrarily made stuff up," it is not found in Scripture.
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
Quite obviously false, you say? . .Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Whose statements are false here? http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html --There are no types in Scripture; that is an antiquated approach;
the "types" are just not there; the construction of a "type" in interpreting Scripture is artificial and reckless
Your references are here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299585-post1071.html

So where do "the falsehoods lie?"
Like I made stuff up in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2273397-post386.html ?

So back up your most recent false charges and show in the first link above where the

1) statements are not Scriptural, but are false,

2) I "just arbitrarily made stuff up" and it is not found in Scripture.
Click to expand...

With your repeated plagiarisms and deceptions, you're really not in the position to make any demands.

Before I look at all these references, I want to be assured to my satisfaction that you did not plagiarize this list before I go any farther.

And I'm wondering if it's even worth my time to do that. :shrug:

And another thing - it took pages and pages and pages of worthless crap from you before you provided the references (from wherever you got them). Instead of weaseling around, you could have just said that you needed time.... but that would have betrayed your plagiarism (had you compiled the list, you would have had references).
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
fallingblood said:
Really? So if I reject one thing, I must reject everything? That makes sense.
Click to expand...

And you can't reject all of smoky's half-cocked misinterpretations as well.

I'm sure you don't know - or can't even venture a guess as to all the exceptions that smoky has up his sleve.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
OK, here's two sources on typology.

One is available in Google books -

Essay in the book is "Typology" by Frances Young.

Crossing the boundaries: essays in ... - Google Books
Crossing the boundaries : essays in Biblical interpretation in honour of Michael D. Goulder / edited by Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce, David E. Orton. Leiden ; New York : E.J. Brill, 1994.

The other is H.A. Blair, "Allegory, Typology and Archetypes," Studia Patristica XVII.1 (1982): 263-67.

And there's also:


Essay: "Rhetoric and Hermenutic Synkrisis in Patristic Typology" by Daniel Sheerin in the book
Nova et vetera : patristic studies in honor of Thomas Patrick Halton / edited by John Petruccione. Washington, D.C. : Catholic University of America Press, c1998.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
With your repeated plagiarisms and deceptions, you're really not in the position to make any demands.
Before I look at all these references, I want to be assured to my satisfaction that you did not plagiarize this list before I go any farther.
Click to expand...
I've already told you that the titles came from my Sunday school notes of long ago.
And I'm wondering if it's even worth my time to do that. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Heh, heh. . .to quote (following) your buddy, fallingblood: "you're just making a lame excuse to not address the issue". . .heh, heh.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299178-post1059.html
And another thing - it took pages and pages and pages of worthless crap from you before you provided the references (from wherever you got them). Instead of weaseling around, you could have just said that you needed time.... but that would have betrayed your plagiarism (had you compiled the list, you would have had references).
Click to expand...
That would be time for "pages and pages" to first show your foolish, ignorant, reckless and all-encompassing false claims regarding types themselves,
(of which the NT makes many specific claims) in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html . . .

so I wouldn't have to show your ignorant claims to be false after I provided the references in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299585-post1070.html
 
Last edited:
H

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
smokydot said:
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. . .
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.

I don't know what sources YOU use, or whose authority taught you that. But amongst Jewish learning, that is intellectual theft, and it is as culpable and as accountable as sin as much as stealing money is.

I remember once coming up with a Torah lecture that I thought up on my own. When I gave the lecture, the teachers who were present goggled at me and asked me if I was certain. Confused, I said that I was.

They explained that someone had come up with the same insight as I had 200 years ago. It was a bit of an eye-opener, but if I wanted to continue to give the lecture I was giving, I had to cite that source ever after, as that fellow came up with the idea before I did, even if I didn't take it from him.

I read a LOT, and enjoy reading transcripts of Torah lectures. But if I give over bits of the material that I KNOW comes from any source, I do my darnedest to cite those sources.

The only time I don't is when I've honestly forgotten the source. But when I cut and paste (and I do that when certain articles articulate things better than I could), I link back to the source so that everyone knows where I got my material.

I'm sure that it's always good to "spread the good word," but if you used someone else's words to do it, you have to cite them, or that is plagiarism, and intellectual theft.

Also... Smoky, I don't know if you paid attention, but angellous is a student. One thing that is MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE is telling a student that it is okay to plagiarize. If he took your tack on claiming someone else's work as his own, he could be expelled from his university, or black-balled from graduate school.

Whether I agree or disagree with your arguments, at this point, it is irrelevant.

What you did is NOT cool. :tsk:
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Harmonious said:
No, it isn't.

I don't know what sources YOU use, or whose authority taught you that. But amongst Jewish learning, that is intellectual theft, and it is as culpable and as accountable as sin as much as stealing money is.
Click to expand...

It's theft in Christian circles as well.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Harmonious said:
Good to know we're on the same page about this type of thing.
Click to expand...

A curious thing to me is that younger students are less prone to plagiarism than older students. I think it's because the younger students have recently been taught how to reason and write effectively, while the older folks attended college 20+ years ago.

That's why I think that smoky is 50+ years old, most likely retired, and is playing around on RF during his free time. Member of a small, conservative church for at least 10 years.:cool:
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
Harmonious said:
No, it isn't.
I don't know what sources YOU use, or whose authority taught you that. But amongst Jewish learning, that is intellectual theft, and it is as culpable and as accountable as sin as much as stealing money is.
I remember once coming up with a Torah lecture that I thought up on my own. When I gave the lecture, the teachers who were present goggled at me and asked me if I was certain. Confused, I said that I was.
They explained that someone had come up with the same insight as I had 200 years ago. It was a bit of an eye-opener, but if I wanted to continue to give the lecture I was giving, I had to cite that source ever after, as that fellow came up with the idea before I did, even if I didn't take it from him.
I read a LOT, and enjoy reading transcripts of Torah lectures. But if I give over bits of the material that I KNOW comes from any source, I do my darnedest to cite those sources.
The only time I don't is when I've honestly forgotten the source. But when I cut and paste (and I do that when certain articles articulate things better than I could), I link back to the source so that everyone knows where I got my material.
Click to expand...
I don't ever do cut and paste.
EDIT: As I understand cut and paste, which is electronically transferring someone else's material from another source into your own text. . .but I do re-submit my own posts.
I'm sure that it's always good to "spread the good word," but if you used someone else's words to do it, you have to cite them, or that is plagiarism, and intellectual theft.
Click to expand...
If I were teaching a Sunday school class, I would not hesitate to point out that list without sourcing it, just as my Sunday school teacher did with us.
You're talking to a different crowd than the one you and angellous traffic in.
Also... Smoky, I don't know if you paid attention, but angellous is a student. One thing that is MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE is telling a student that it is okay to plagiarize. If he took your tack on claiming someone else's work as his own, he could be expelled from his university, or black-balled from graduate school.
Click to expand...
That's one of the problems here. . .for him it's about whose work it is and who gets the credit. . .that's not what it's about for everyone.
Whether I agree or disagree with your arguments, at this point, it is irrelevant.
What you did is NOT cool. :tsk:
Click to expand...
I hear you. . .

It looks like the problem is the culture of academia compared to the culture of those who believe Scripture is the Word of God written, wherein
understanding the truth of it is the important thing, rather than who gets credit for the work.

It matters not to me if all those references, and the additional titles I provided to the list from my Sunday school teacher, in
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299585-post1070.html , are credited to me or not, no matter when or where they are used.

Thanks, Harmonious.
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
It looks like the problem is the culture of academia compared to the culture of those who believe Scripture is the Word of God written, wherein understanding the truth of it is the important thing, rather than who gets credit for the work.
Click to expand...

No, it's a matter of ethics and legality... and a matter of adhering to the rules of the forum that you agreed to as a member:

7. Plagiarism
Plagiarism is illegal and never permitted. To quote another author you must always identify the Title, Author, and Publisher. You may insert a short paragraph or one or two sentences from it into your post, showing a link to the source. When using material in this way, you must indicate the significance of the material in your own words. Posts that just show a link and source material will be removed. This rule will be enforced with in our understanding of intellectual property rights and fair use.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top