• 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?

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
Of course you're not. . .you can't refute their facts. . .you got nuthin'!
Click to expand...

It's useless to deal with facts with you because you either don't know what a fact is or you just don't care at all about intellectual honesty or personal integrity.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
smokydot said:
That's evidence that editing my posts is a consistent practice (for purposes of clarity, conciseness and understanding),
rather than a sinister attempt to materially alter my past arguments. . .which is a ridiculous notion anyway.

Because all objections, past and currrent, are only to the substance of the arguments on the record.
There are no objections anywhere in the record to arguments which themselves aren't likewise found in the record. . .which is exactly why concrete evidence of removal of, or material alteration to, my arguments can't be produced.

So keep looking. . .the evidence you seek is hiding in the same place as the OT references, which I posted to the types, are hiding.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm just waiting for you to actually take some time and offer a rebuttal to my last couple of posts.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
fallingblood said:
Actually, I'm just waiting for you to actually take some time and offer a rebuttal to my last couple of posts.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath.

If he actually does that, I'll eat my shorts and post the event on youtube.

Condition: In his response, smoky may not repeat himself or edit his posts.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Well, the most dishonest example that I know of is when you changed a post to change "Jesus is in every book of the Bible" (or similar). I had already responded to that post, then you changed the phrase to "type" and criticized me for not responding to it as such.
That's a very significant edit. And everyone reading the thread agreed that what you did was dishonest (and I add sleazy).
Click to expand...
What a coincidence! . .that is your most dishonest example of supposed "dishonesty" on my part. . .and that's 'cause you got a lot riding on this one,
because it demolishes one of your basic and favorite false assertions regarding the Bible. . .you'll misrepresent whatever you think it takes to preserve that sacred cow.

This is one of those "he said, she said" exposing the truth of events, which take a lot of ink to sort out. . .and which you are counting on not many bothering to read so that the truth regarding your false charges is not brought to light.

But let's look at the sequence of events and see if your charges of dishonesty are true on this.
Feel free to provide proof of any claims you have to the contrary, because I can provide proof of everything below:

---in response to your denial of the unity of the whole Bible, I typed a list of types from my notes jotted down in Sunday school, provided the NT references where the types are shown, and included a preliminary comment above the list that the whole Bible "shows who Jesus is."
---your response to that list was an overly strong objection, to the effect that the list was completely invalid and false (I was shocked, to say the least, at such ignorance)
---I responded that the list were all Biblical "types"
---your response made obviously clear you had no idea what a "type" was
---I "criticized" your lack of knowledge regarding something so basic to the Scriptures, and in an effort to help you see the meaning of "type," I inserted this parenthetical into my preliminary comment, "shows (in types, symbols, pictures of) who Jesus is"
---in your abysmal ignorance of types, you saw that as a material and significant edit to the post, introducing a new subject, and only further demonstrating that you didn't have a clue about typology in the Bible, because you didn't recognize, as such, a list of obvious types when you saw it, and thought it was an entirely new subject edited into the post
---you went on to allege that there were no types in Scripture, and that the use of them was "artificial and reckless"
---with that bizarre statement, I presented 11 anti-types specifically stated by the NT writers, and asserted that you were, in effect, accusing them of being "artificial and reckless"
---not understanding that each of the 11 NT anti-types, specifically stated by the NT writers, required an OT type as its prefigurement, you continued to deny any types in the OT, charging that the long list of types in my post did not have OT references to show where they were prefigured
---I then retyped, reformatted, and provided 33% more types, along with the numerous OT references showing their prefigurements
---you concluded that the changes in formatting meant that I was not the source of the numerous OT references I provided, but that I had altered a list which I had transferred from another source. . .and you set out to find my source of those numerous OT references, which you have yet to find
---you subsequently returned to your denial of any types in the NT, reinvigorated by your not being able to find more than one example of the word "type," or its equivalent, in the NT
---I then presented from the NT several more examples of the use of the word, or its equivalent, and also provided from Col 2:16-17 the definition, rule and method of identifying types in the Bible
---but in spite of the examples specifically stated by the NT writers, and in spite of Col 2:16-17 containing the definiton, rule and method of identifying types, you continue to deny the fact of typology in the Bible, which has been so overwhelmingly demonstrated ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2305523-post1251.html

Likewise, you prefer to stick to your false charge that I significantly edited that list of types when, for your benefit I added the parenthetical to explain what a "type" was, because you obviously had, and still don't have, a clue what they are. . .and you still deny the typology of the Bible, in spite of Col 2:16-17, and all the specific examples presented by the NT writers. . . .go figure. . .(and I have, following)

The reason for this strong and persistent denial of Biblical facts is:
1) you don't have enough on board to evaluate the Biblical facts of typololgy,
2) the typology found in the whole Bible absolutely annihilates your basic and favorite false assertion that there is no unity of the Bible,
that it is only "an arbitrary collection of diparate writings," and
3) since your ignorance on the subject doesn't allow you to evaluate the Biblical facts which show you are wrong, you're not about to abandon your favorite false assertion that there is no unity of the Bible. . .now how dumb is that?
On top of this, that post plagiarized a sermon by Oral Roberts.
Click to expand...
And on top of that statement is your knowing falsehood of your misrepresentation of my honest mistake.

Because I took that list from my old handwritten notes from Sunday school, and I had no idea it did not come from my Sunday school teacher. But you just couldn't believe that I had provided those NT references in the first list, and went out to the internet and found that the list itself, without the NT references, looked to be from Oral Roberts, and then you accused me of plagiarizing. . .which is one of your favorite false claims to discredit an argument.

So I subsequently edited that post to acknowledge that 75% of the second list of types came from Oral Roberts, and identified the 25% of the list which came from me.

And you know of those circumstances, and still continue to misrepresent it as me plagiarizing with full knowledge and full consent. . .you are so desperate to hang something on me which will discredit me that you are willing to knowingly misrepresent matters. . .now how dishonest is that?

I have taken your meausre in these things. . .and you are found wanting.
The multitude of facts speak for themselves. . .there is nothing more to be said on them.

Selah.
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Smoky -

I hereby repeat everything that I've said on this thread. Twice.

And I delete or move 35% of my posts and delete another 25%.

So put that in your smipe and poke it.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
smokydot said:
What is exceptionally pathetic is your continuation of these false charges after they have been clearly demonsrated from the record to be false.
Click to expand...

Smoky,

Repeating yourself is not an answer to proof of dishonesty.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
O man that's funny. :biglaugh:

Do you have anything new to say?
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
angellous_evangellous said:
O man that's funny. :biglaugh:

Do you have anything new to say?
Click to expand...
I'll save Smokey sometime:

What is exceptionally pathetic is your continuation of these false charges after they have been clearly demonsrated from the record to be false.
Your false assertions have been disproven by the record in the following. . .you just won't admit it.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...-post1153.html -- proof your assertion of "plagiarizing" an interlinear is false, following second quote therein

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...-post1309.html -- unavoidable conclusion of your reckless statement regarding "types," following second quote therein

And are you going to address these?

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...-post1308.html -- refutation of your false claim to changing your views when you are wrong, to which should be added at the first link there: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...4-post226.html

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...-post1309.html -- refutation of your false claim to not calling me a liar or slandering me, following first quote therein

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...-post1326.html -- refutation of your false claim of my "deception by edit" and your second false charge of plagiarism

Of course you're not. . .you can't refute their facts. . .you got nuthin'!





Now maybe he won't have to repeat himself and will move on.
 
S

smokydot

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
You denying plagiarism and slander is exceptionally funny. Particularly when it is so easy to prove. Lying, deceit, and fabrication just go right along with it.
Click to expand...
What is exceptionally pathetic is your continuation of these false charges after they have been clearly demonsrated from the record to be false.
Your false assertions have been disproven by the record in the following. . .but you refuse to admit it.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2302349-post1153.html -- proof your assertion of "plagiarizing" an interlinear is false, following second quote therein

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2307825-post1309.html -- unavoidable conclusion of your reckless statement regarding "types," following second quote therein

And are you going to address these?

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2307822-post1308.html -- refutation of your false claim to changing your views when you are wrong, to which should be added at the first link: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2309874-post226.html

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2307825-post1309.html -- refutation of your false claim to not calling me a liar or slandering me, following first quote therein

---http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2308502-post1326.html -- refutation of your false claim of my "deception by edit" and your second false charge of plagiarism

Of course you're not. . .you can't refute their facts. . .you got nuthin'!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top