-
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
I have no idea what you are talking about. . .since I am the one who introduced "types" to show the "unity of the Bible," and I did not introduce them as a means of "interpreting" Scripture. . .so linking them with "interpreting" Scripture in my use of them is misleading.How is it misleading to say "we"? You didn't even read my post (at least, I hope not because your response is almost insanely stupid) because there's no way anyone could mistake "we" to include the apostles, especially when I'm talking about interpreting their works. Calling that misleading is just silly and either demonstrates abysmal laziness or incompetence.
You're coming unhinged again.
That is not true.If "type" is repeated in the NT, why is there only one example in the NT that uses the word as you do.
Me thinks the pot is really calling the kettle black here on the arrogance thing.I also realize that in your unsurpassed arrogance you think that when you frame an argument for the unity of Scripture, you are not interpreting it.
In the latter day heretical novel speculations that pass for scholarship, the words of Scripture do not really carry any meaning. . .so that any assignation of meaning to the words can never be more than subjective "interpretation."
To say the verse "Jesus wept." means Jesus wept is just my subjective "interpretation" of it. And the students of these latter day heretical novel speculators
are incensed, no less (or unhinged), when one asserts that the words of Scripture are to be taken at their meaning.
Oh, I'm sure that you think any assignation of meaning to the words of Scripture can never be more than subjective "interpretation."Try looking up a definition for "interpret," if you can.
I'm sure you're shocked (unhinged) that someone would assert that the words of Scripture are to be taken at their meaning.
It's all part of the effort to unseat the Word of God's truth. . .Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!
EDIT: This is the strategy the latter day heretical novel speculators use:
Step 1 -- separate Scripture from its propositional, narrative meaning.
Step 2 -- limit its meaning to esoterical subjective truth.
Step 3 -- invalidate all its factual claims.
Sadly, this is the only thing you've ever known. . .and you don't actually know the Scriptures well enough to see the nonsense of it all. . .these latter day heretical novel speculations are "insight" to you, arriving at your doorstep like light of "revelation."
Sad. . .Come, Lord Jesus!
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I have no idea what you are talking about. . .since I am the one who introduced "types" to show the "unity of the Bible," and I did not introduce them as a means of "interpreting" Scripture. . .so linking them with "interpreting" Scripture in my use of them is misleading.
Is this what you really meant to say?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I'm sure you're shocked (unhinged) that someone would assert that the words of Scripture are to be taken at their meaning.
No, what's shocking is that someone can be so sure that they are taking the Scripture "at its meaning" and be so far from any resemblence of a possible meaning of the texts in question.
You're even misreading it literally, which is what I assume you think that's what it means... and somehow that your reading of these Scriptures are infalliable.
Don't think so. . .looks like I'm not the one who hasn't read Brown.That's not in dispute.
What is in dispute here - and fallingblood makes it abundantly clear - is Brown's application of what it means to be "responsible" as compared to your objections.
For smart guys, you have a hard time getting and keeping things straight.
Brown says: "I am not talking about guilt, merely responsibility. . .They are guilty only if they know the accused is undeserving." (TIME, 4/4/94, Why was Jesus Crucified?)
So I'll agree, Brown did not specifically say the Jews were not guilty, he just left it open. . .which again is contrary to the NT which does not leave it open.
Jesus settles it, when he declares their guilt (below). . .and therefore according to Brown's postulation, that means they knew the accused was undeserving.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303235-post1158.html
Selah.
Last edited:
Is there a problem?Is this what you really meant to say?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Brown says: "I am not talking about guilt, merely responsibility. . .They are guilty only if they know the accused is undeserving." (TIME, 4/4/94, Why was Jesus Crucified?)
Just because Brown says something.... doesn't mean that you've understood him correctly or that you've created a rebuttal that's intellectually honest.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Is there a problem?
The post was a bit more jumbled and confused than usual.
Feel free to edit that one. It needs it.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
EDIT: This is the strategy the latter day heretical novel speculators use:
Step 1 -- separate Scripture from its propositional, narrative meaning.
Step 2 -- limit its meaning to esoterical subjective truth.
Step 3 -- invalidate all its factual claims.
Why on earth do you think this?
True statement. . .which has absolutely no relevance or bearing on the issue at hand--Brown's article.Just because Brown says something.... doesn't mean that you've understood him correctly or that you've created a rebuttal that's intellectually honest.
So show how I have misunderstood Brown here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2304726-post1225.html.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
True statement. . .which has absolutely no relevance or bearing on the issue at hand.
Sure it does. You're insisting that you're correct when you're utterly wrong, so much so that fallingblood couldn't refrain from calling you a liar.
That leads me to think that you are under the delusion that whatever you say is right - and that explains a lot of posts in this thread.
And that's why I edit my posts. . .I know more than I can speak.The post was a bit more jumbled and confused than usual.
Feel free to edit that one. It needs it.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
And that's why I edit my posts. . .I know more than I can speak.
[youtube]jgZTvLFRYrE[/youtube]
YouTube - Ray Charles - A Song For You
But you guys never show where I got it wrong. . .you just make unsubstantiated assertions. . .back 'em up with demonstration. . .you can't.Sure it does. You're insisting that you're correct when you're utterly wrong, so much so that fallingblood couldn't refrain from calling you a liar.
Then show where I am utterly wrong and where I lie in the post at issue, here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2304726-post1225.html.That leads me to think that you are under the delusion that whatever you say is right - and that explains a lot of posts in this thread.
You can't. . .because I am not wrong, and I did not lie.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
But you guys never show that I am wrong, you just make unsubstantiated assertions. . .back 'em up with demonstration. . ..
That's why you're delusional. We've shown you quite clearly why you're wrong, and it looks like you are just being dismissive - mostly because you just repeat yourself and link to your previous posts instead of responding to the substance of the criticism.
So we're really not having a debate. You are posting stuff, we respond with criticism, you repeat yourself a hundred times.... and then repeat.
You ask for clarification of my first response above. . .let's start from the beginning. . .I don't have a clue what you are talking about. . .I don't see the word "we" in the post I think you are referring to. . .explain what you mean, and we can go from there. . .I have no idea what you are talking about. . .since I am the one who introduced "types" to show the "unity of the Bible," and I did not introduce them as a means of "interpreting" Scripture. . .so linking them with "interpreting" Scripture in my use of them is misleading.angellous_evangellous said:How is it misleading to say "we"? You didn't even read my post (at least, I hope not because your response is almost insanely stupid) because there's no way anyone could mistake "we" to include the apostles, especially when I'm talking about interpreting their works. Calling that misleading is just silly and either demonstrates abysmal laziness or incompetence.
You're coming unhinged again.
While there is only one example of the word type, the NT writers present many examples of types themselves.If "type" is repeated in the NT, why is there only one example in the NT that uses the word as you do.
Me thinks the pot is really calling the kettle black here on the arrogance thing.I also realize that in your unsurpassed arrogance you think that when you frame an argument for the unity of Scripture, you are not interpreting it.
In the latter day heretical novel speculations that pass for scholarship, the words of Scripture do not really carry any meaning. . .so that any assignation of meaning to the words can never be more than subjective "interpretation."
To say the verse "Jesus wept." means Jesus wept is just my subjective "interpretation" of it. And the students of these latter day heretical novel speculators
are incensed, no less (or unhinged), when one asserts that the words of Scripture are to be taken at their meaning.
Oh, I'm sure that you think any assignation of meaning to the words of Scripture can never be more than subjective "interpretation."Try looking up a definition for "interpret," if you can.
I'm sure you're shocked (unhinged) that someone would assert that the words of Scripture are to be taken at their meaning.
It's all part of the effort to unseat the Word of God's truth. . .Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!
EDIT: This is the strategy the latter day heretical novel speculators use:
Step 1 -- separate Scripture from its propositional, narrative meaning.
Step 2 -- limit its meaning to esoterical subjective truth.
Step 3 -- invalidate all its factual claims.
Sadly, this is the only thing you've ever known. . .and you don't actually know the Scriptures well enough to see the nonsense of it all. . .these latter day heretical novel speculations are "insight" to you, arriving at your doorstep like light of "revelation."
Sad. . .Come, Lord Jesus!
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I'm happy to clarify.
I highlighted the "we" in red in my post, and now I will highlight the surrounding words.
You had said that I was talking about or including the apostles as reckless (etc) when I was clearly not referring to them. See the surrounding posts for context if you need to.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2304237-post1188.html
I highlighted the "we" in red in my post, and now I will highlight the surrounding words.
Absolutely.
EDIT: The "types" simply aren't there. The construction of a "type" in interpreting the Scripture is artificial and reckless, because we have the advantage of hindsight added to a heritage of interpretation. When this is the case, we are forcing a later reading onto the text. Therefore, the type comes from our reading of the text and not the text itself.
You had said that I was talking about or including the apostles as reckless (etc) when I was clearly not referring to them. See the surrounding posts for context if you need to.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2304237-post1188.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, let's get down to actual facts (which now means back to: argument about the argument), your favorite form of deflection in lieu of demonstrating your assertions.That's why you're delusional. We've shown you quite clearly why you're wrong, and it looks like you are just being dismissive - mostly because you just repeat yourself and link to your previous posts instead of responding to the substance of the criticism.
So we're really not having a debate. You are posting stuff, we respond with criticism, you repeat yourself a hundred times.... and then repeat.
Fallingblood called me a liar because I supposedly said Brown did not hold the Jews responsible for the death of Jesus.
Now show in the responses that followed where I got it wrong. . .and if what you present does not show that I am wrong, I will "just repeat myself"
by posting a former proof that I was not wrong. . .you get repetition and links because you keep making the same false statementss that have already been shown
to be false, in the links provided. . .no need for me to do it again. . .
It's one of your favorite steps in your all-too-familiar dance. . .which we are in now--argument about the argument. . .you seek to discredit by trying to cause so much confusion that the issue you can't defend gets lost in it all. . .
So show, in the responses that followed fallingblood's charge of lying, where I got it wrong, as you falsely claim. . .you can't.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Just a second. Are you satisfied with my clarification of "we"?
Fallingblood was perfectly clear. It's you that's avoiding the substance of the argument - like I said, you're dismissing his criticisms out of hand so we can't move forward and get deeper into the conversation.
Fallingblood was perfectly clear. It's you that's avoiding the substance of the argument - like I said, you're dismissing his criticisms out of hand so we can't move forward and get deeper into the conversation.
I understand what you were saying with "we," but your assertion where you used it is false.Just a second. Are you satisfied with my clarification of "we"?
I did not say "we" should construct types as a way of "interpreting" Scripture.
The issue was not "interpretation," the issue was "unity of the Bible."
That is all explained here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2296994-post1013.html . . .I am not going to go around that bush again with you.
Then go forward. . .show where I am wrong there. . .Fallingblood was perfectly clear. It's you that's avoiding the substance of the argument - like I said, you're dismissing his criticisms out of hand so we can't move forward and get deeper into the conversation.
Last edited: