What Day was Jesus Crucified?

[patriot51]

I think you have to look at the bottom line here, bring it back to basics as the human mind does have the nature to think to technically than it needs to.

Man wrote the bible, and then wrote it again, and again, and again. It did not come from a higher power. The minority of Man has always sought to rule and control, and what better way to do it with the power of stories that captures the imagination.

For example, close your eyes, imagine your most favourite food. Smell it in your mind, see it in your mind, think of yourself enjoying eating it only to notice that Magots and spiders are crawling all over it. not so nice now... the power of imagination can be tampered with by the individual. saddly to say fear mostly always wins, which is why religion can be forced on people from and early age...

 

[smokydot]

In Pascagula, Mississippi?
Until you do it enough to make it clear that you aren't stealing stuff... I would say, "Yes."
Okay.
And I'm probably guessing you don't necessarily quote line and verse from them, either. You know, I DID say that there was something to not citing something if you HONESTLY forgot its source. But if it is clear you KNOW what a source was and didn't bother to list it...
There is a difference. I hope you can understand the difference.
I just covered that.
Not really. Especially if someone was able to pin your source down to something more specific.
The proper answer that would have been far less contentious, then, would have been (or I would have thought): "Cool. I didn't know where my Sunday school teacher got that from. I'm glad to know where it came from."
But by then... This is an embroiled mess, and I'm not going to sift through who was right and who was wrong. But I DO understand the concept of plagiarism. (I was a tutor for 7 years on two separate universities' payroll, and that was a MAJOR issue. I had to turn in a couple of students who DID plagiarize unrepentantly, even when I pointed out how to correct the issue, cite their source, or otherwise fix the situation.)
Simply brushing the concept under the rug isn't cool.
If it is important to you to live what you consider to be a Christlike life, you should be able to act with intellectual integrity.
Telling people who correct you about such things that "It isn't important because your Sunday school teacher didn't bother" shows a complete unwillingness to follow God's tenets of moral straightness, as stealing intellectual property doesn't fit well with "Loving one's neighbor as one's self."
And it was pointed out that your Sunday school teacher's notes came from Oral Roberts.
It wouldn't hurt you to acknowledge this publicly.
You have the right to claim that you didn't know it before. But now that you know, you have as much responsibility to list the source as I did when giving my lecture, once I realized that someone came up with the idea before I did.

Oh. . .you mean in the list where I provided the references? But I added a bunch of titles to that list. . .so I guess I have to come up with a way to point those out?
Life is a whole lot simpler in the non-academic world.

Let me see what I can do there, then. I don't think I can still edit it though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh. . .you mean in the list where I provided the references? But I added a bunch of titles to that list. . .so I guess I have to come up with a way to point those out?
Life is a whole lot simpler in the non-academic world.

Let me see what I can do there, then. I don't think I can still edit it though.

 

[smokydot]

You flatter yourself a bit much.

It's part of the package when you're born again. . .

 

[esmith]

Just wondering if smokydot has been reading and believing in the Epistle of Barnabas?

 

[patriot51]

why do you all argue over a book that is fictitious and distructive to the human race, it only serves to cause arguments (look at this forum and the multitude of debates) and death, can we choose another book please. One of a scientific nature perhaps???

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I bet the flowers are always in bloom in smokydot-land.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, then you quote them. . .if it's important to you.

Not really. We're all used to you refusing to present information that undermines your misinterpretations.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's part of the package when you're born again. . .

I don't think that "Obstinate Arrogance" is a fruit of the Spirit.

 

[Harmonious]

Oh. . .you mean in the list where I provided the references? But I added a bunch of titles to that list. . .so I guess I have to come up with a way to point those out?
Life is a whole lot simpler in the non-academic world.

Let me see what I can do there, then. I don't think I can still edit it though.

I think you are confusing me with people who are following your specific argument and condemning you for specific acts of plagiarism.

I wasn't discussing any particular argument. I only referred to the concept of plagiarism, and expressed that it was wrong, when you stated that plagiarism was okay, as long as it was sharing knowledge.

It isn't just the academic world that this refers to, but all things.

 

[smokydot]

Am I really being self-righteous? Or are you annoyed that I've told you that you were wrong?

Neither, it was the first ridiculous name that came to my mind for a church.

I appreciate your comments when they aren't dismissive or disdainful.

EDIT: When I say "I do not do cut and paste," I am referring to electronic transfer of someone else's material from another source into my own text.

But I do re-submit my own posts, which is not what I mean by "cut and paste."

 

[smokydot]

I don't think that "Obstinate Arrogance" is a fruit of the Spirit.

And are sour grapes?

 

[smokydot]

Presenting two verses to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah isn't going to hurt that much (except to show that you are wrong, again).

Then your issue is with the Greek scholars of the NIV, it's not with me. . .and you've already hung yourself with your own rope on that one, in the following:

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

If it's important to you, then you quote the verses. . .because I smell another agenda here -- deja vu -- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2277247-post678.html

Fool me once, shame on you. . .fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[smokydot]

I think you are confusing me with people who are following your specific argument and condemning you for specific acts of plagiarism.
I wasn't discussing any particular argument. I only referred to the concept of plagiarism, and expressed that it was wrong, when you stated that plagiarism was okay, as long as it was sharing knowledge.
It isn't just the academic world that this refers to, but all things.

In the "world of angellous," it also refers to use of the interlinear: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299316-post1065.html

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Fool me once, shame on you. . .fool me twice, shame on me.

*ignore list*

 

[smokydot]

Presenting two verses to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah isn't going to hurt that much (except to show that you are wrong, again).

Are you confusing types in Scripture with the allegorical interpretation of Scripture practiced long ago?

Because your responses still indicate you don't really understand what a type is.

 

[smokydot]

*ignore list*

Is that a promise?

Farewell, angellous, at. . . http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2300254-post1078.html

 

[smokydot]

I have posted a couple of times to this thread and have been following it. I kind of took offense to one post for the following reason.

First I would like to say I am 68 years young.
I was raised a Christian and had to attend church until I joined the Navy and spent 20 years. I had not attended church from 1961 to just recently when my wife started attending after never attending in her life. After a few months I decided to support her and start attending again. However, I decided I couldn't attend on "faith" alone. I started reading various books (Jewish Study Bible, NIV Study Bible, DVD seminars on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Old Testament, New Testament, Lost Christianities, and the Book of Genesis). I have also have been reading about the history of the Ancient Near East as it relates to the bible. One must always continue to learn. At the present time I, along with the wife, have become very skeptical about what the New Testament is expounding (as you can gather from my posts).

I guess what I am saying is just because we may be old doesn't necessarily mean we have a closed mind to religious teachings. I find the RF very informative and am not just killing time since we are retired.

What do you find informative here?

I am not sure about the statement about old vs young and plagiarism. I kind of believe that the "older" generation has as much respect, if not more, than the younger generation in respect to personal honor.

 

[Harmonious]

In the "world of angellous," it also refers to use of the interlinear: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299316-post1065.html

Smoky, I am not angellous. That is part one.

Part 2: Your blase attitude regarding the CONCEPT of plagiarism is what I was criticizing, not any particular point you were making.

Part 3: While I wasn't participating in that conversation, I remember that you were particularly insistent that angellous was not using a concordance, as you attempted to say per Poisonshady's disgust at those who would ignore the translations of Hebrew by those who USE Hebrew and prefer to use a concordance that doesn't take common usage or context into account.

And after hounding him for several pages, you cited something or other, and angellous asked YOU where you got your translation of your Greek. You claimed your translation as your own, and then angellous called you on it: it was not your own translation, but the interlinear translation.

No one would have faulted you for using a translation, Smoky. I use a translation somewhat regularly. However, I would not have the audacity to claim that a translation I used was my own, unless it truly was. You claimed the interlinear translation as your OWN translation. That was the first claim that you had plagiarized.

Not because you USED a translation, but because you claimed the translation to be your own work when it clearly was not.

I was not a part of your argument about your individual usage of plagiarism. I merely took objection to your blithe mention of how "lovers of the Bible" don't object to plagiarism, when in the name of sharing knowledge.

For some reason, you wish to include me in your argument with angellous (which he excluded himself from), fallingblood, esmith, and whoever else is calling you on whatever plagiarism they are pinning on you.

I don't care about that. Your argument about that is with them. I was arguing with you on the principle of the matter: Bible-lovers do indeed object to plagiarism.

 

[esmith]

What do you find informative here?

That people refuse to admit what they believe might have possible misrepresentations or embellishments associated with the writings they use as factual.