What Day was Jesus Crucified?

fallingblood · Jan 7, 2011

smokydot said:
Like your buddy, angellous, accepts that he's wrong about their being no types in the Bible?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

So you accept that you're wrong? Because the is the implication you gave here.

smokydot · Jan 7, 2011

angellous_evangellous said:
In any case, I'm very glad to see you, fallingblood.
It's such a relief to read something other than...

I forgot to tell you what a good job he did covering for you yesterday.

smokydot · Jan 7, 2011

fallingblood said:
So you accept that you're wrong? Because the is the implication you gave here.

As much as angellous accepts he's wrong about there being no types in the Bible.

smokydot · Jan 7, 2011

angellous_evangellous said:
:biglaugh:
Did you see what he did with his slander against me? What a way to turn something inside out - I've rarely seen such determination to misconstrue a simple statement.

Perhaps you could show me where the following logic fails:

Angellous Principle: The practice of constructing types to interpret Scripture is artificial and reckless. ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285025-post921.html

NT Report: The NT writers practiced construction of types to interpret Scripture. ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

Conclusion: The NT writers' (apostles) practice of constructing types to interpret Scripture is artificial and reckless. ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html, following your third quote there.

The logical conclusion of your assertion is clear. With your abysmal ignorance of types, you thought you were quite safe in making such a foolish claim. . .and you've been trying to put legs under it ever since. . .but it still doesn't stand. . .and you just won't admit it.

The truth is not slander.

fallingblood · Jan 7, 2011

smokydot said:
As much as angellous accepts he's wrong about there being no types in the Bible.

Well maybe you want to actually do some work now and show why you aren't wrong. Otherwise, I just have to assume that you meant you were wrong.

smokydot · Jan 7, 2011

fallingblood said:
No, it is not a clue to when Jesus rose from the dead. Scripture does not say that is how Jesus rose from the dead, or that it had anything to do with it. Again, point to scripture that states when Jesus rose from the dead. I doubt you can, and thus, your argument against Brown fails.

The evidence is here, following. . .you just refuse to admit it. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303235-post1158.html

I'm as wrong as angellous says he is wrong.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

angellous_evangellous · Jan 7, 2011

smokydot said:
Perhaps you could show me where the following logic fails:

Angellous Principle: The practice of constructing types to interpret Scripture is artificial and reckless. ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2285025-post921.html

NT Report: The NT writers practiced construction of types to interpret Scripture. ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

Conclusion: The NT writers' (apostles) practice of constructing types to interpret Scripture is artificial and reckless. ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2290408-post950.html, following your third quote there.

The truth is not slander.

Your logical flaw is not enough Willie.

[youtube]deebKNI-dTE[/youtube]
YouTube - Willie Nelson - Rainbow Connection

angellous_evangellous · Jan 7, 2011

smokydot said:
The evidence is here, following. . .you just refuse to admit it. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303235-post1158.html

Like your buddy, angellous, accepts that he's wrong about their being no types in the Bible?

I'm as wrong as he says he is wrong.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

It's so cute when you do that.

angellous_evangellous · Jan 7, 2011

smokydot said:
As much as angellous accepts he's wrong about there being no types in the Bible.

Well, I accept that you're creating artificial types that have little to nothing with what the text says.

angellous_evangellous · Jan 7, 2011

smokydot said:
The truth is not slander.

You also can't arrive at a truth when your method is based on open dishonesty and forcing what I said into something that you want it to be. No one with any measurable level of intelligence would be unable to comprehend that my post specifically excludes the kind of reading that you gave it.... especially after I gave further explanation.

And then you come up with such a brutally twisted reading of the text so it can support your slander. Unbelievable.

But, that's what you do with Scripture and call it truth....

smokydot · Jan 7, 2011

angellous_evangellous said:
Well, I accept that you're creating artificial types that have little to nothing with what the text says.

Yeah, that's what you said about the types presented by the NT writers. . .which is given the big lie here.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

angellous_evangellous · Jan 7, 2011

smokydot said:
I'm as wrong as angellous says he is wrong.

The difference is that I approach topics honestly with the willingness to find that I'm wrong and change my views accordingly.

When I see that I'm losing ground, I don't whine, lie, slander, plagiarize, or twist my opponent's words around into something that they can't possibly mean.

So yes, if I were wrong, I would admit it and be glad to be corrected.

It's all about the approach. Honesty has to be the priority.

angellous_evangellous · Jan 7, 2011

smokydot said:
Yeah, that's what you said about the types presented by the NT writers. . .which is given the big lie here.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

Why are you so intent on slandering me? I've never done that to you.

I mean really, anyone who cares to look at the quotes (thanks for providing the link) can clearly see that I'm not saying what you said that I said.

It's not really offensive, but it's a childish and dishonest way to go about things.

angellous_evangellous · Jan 7, 2011

smokydot said:
I forgot to tell you what a good job he did covering for you yesterday.

I went back and I don't see anything from yesterday.

Do you have a specific post in mind or are you making stuff up again??

smokydot · Jan 7, 2011

angellous_evangellous said:
I went back and I don't see anything from yesterday.
Do you have a specific post in mind or are you making stuff up again??

"Making stuff up" like I did in these?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2273397-post386.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2274818-post501.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277276-post680.html
---

smokydot · Jan 7, 2011

angellous_evangellous said:
You also can't arrive at a truth when your method is based on open dishonesty and forcing what I said into something that you want it to be. No one with any measurable level of intelligence would be unable to comprehend that my post specifically excludes the kind of reading that you gave it.... especially after I gave further explanation.
And then you come up with such a brutally twisted reading of the text so it can support your slander. Unbelievable.
But, that's what you do with Scripture and call it truth....

You got some back-up for any of that. . .'cause it sure ain't true. . .

angellous_evangellous · Jan 7, 2011

smokydot said:
You got some back up for any of that. . .'cause it sure ain't true. . .

Really? You don't understand that truth does not come from incorrect observational method?

If the method is incorrect, then the outcome must be false.

It's a rule of logic: if any premise is incorrect, then the conclusion is wrong.

That's why you can't arrive at truth if you are dishonest.

angellous_evangellous · Jan 7, 2011

smokydot said:
"Making stuff up" like I did in these?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2273397-post386.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2274818-post501.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277276-post680.html
---

Not every post of yours is some kind of fabrication.

smokydot · Jan 7, 2011

angellous_evangellous said:
Well, I accept that you're creating artificial types that have little to nothing with what the text says.

Yeah, that's what you said about the types presented by the NT writers. . .which is given the big lie here.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

angellous_evangellous said:
Why are you so intent on slandering me? I've never done that to you.

You've never accused me of lying, deceit, dishonesty, making stuff up, intentional "plagiarizing," creating artificial types that have little to nothing to do with Scripture, brutally twisting the reading to support my slander? . .yeah, right.

I mean really, anyone who cares to look at the quotes (thanks for providing the link) can clearly see that I'm not saying what you said that I said.

The material speaks for itself. . .and everyone can decide for himself.

It's not really offensive, but it's a childish and dishonest way to go about things.

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black. . .

fallingblood · Jan 7, 2011

smokydot said:
The evidence is here, following. . .you just refuse to admit it. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2303235-post1158.html

I'm as wrong as angellous says he is wrong.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

What Day was Jesus Crucified?

Agnostic Theist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Agnostic Theist

Well-Known Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Well-Known Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Well-Known Member

Agnostic Theist