21 Nov 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57bwahaha, more hate speech, its like a never ending factory of hate speech.
LIAR; There were plenty of women in tears today at the news of the Laity voting against them and their Bishops and Arch Bishops by advocating the subordination of Women in the Church, the sooner these Women and their non bigoted male counter parts bring about the inevitable schism in the church and allow the archaic dregs to rot on the vine the better.
" ...[text shortened]... promise.”
Clearly even though you posted this on another thread you are not one with Christ.
the quotation that you mention has what to do with appointments, that is correct
nada, you might as well cite, God is love, and while we are at it, you have still to
produce two other references for your hate speech,
1. that the Bible states that women are unworthy to serve
2. that the Bible states that women are not to be respected
thanks in advance.
21 Nov 12
Originally posted by SuzianneGuys, think about how you are looking right now.
It also says those guilty of adultery should be stoned.
Do you agree with that too, Mr. Passive Anti-War Anti-Blood Christian?
It also says you should keep a kosher kitchen.
Do you do that too?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh another epic failure,
why are you trying to quote an aspect of the mosaic law to me, a christian? a ...[text shortened]... ll reject the Biblical arrangement and try to
establish your own, Miss spiritual buffet queen!
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo the subjugation and oppression of Women was your idea then.
bwahaha, more hate speech, its like a never ending factory of hate speech.
the quotation that you mention has what to do with appointments, that is correct
nada, you might as well cite, God is love, and while we are at it, you have still to
produce two other references for your hate speech,
1. that the Bible states that women are unworthy to serve
2. that the Bible states that women are not to be respected
thanks in advance.
A worm can squirm Robbie but when exposed to the light the beak will strike.
22 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57I see, you have no evidence for your claims, thankyou. Squirm? after reading your
So the subjugation and oppression of Women was your idea then.
A worm can squirm Robbie but when exposed to the light the beak will strike.
hate speech I deny anyone would not be made to squirm.
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHerein lies the cherry picking lunacy of your position. When a scholar, such as BeDuhn, writes something that supports your position they are lauded to the high heaven. Yet when scholars present something which conflicts with your position we are presented with 'scholars smollers'.
yeah yeah, scholars smollers
22 Nov 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobCherry picking lunacy? my dear sir, all the things written by Jason BeDhun can be
Herein lies the cherry picking lunacy of your position. When a scholar, such as BeDuhn, writes something that supports your position they are lauded to the high heaven. Yet when scholars present something which conflicts with your position we are presented with 'scholars smollers'.
verified, all one needs to do is look at the text, follow the Greek syntax and idiom and it
becomes self evident that what he is talking about is true, the scholars you produce on
the other hand, produce mere opinions, therein lies the difference. It seems that more
and more on this forum i must defend the scientific method against the nefarious
machinations of those who would seek to banish it to the realms of mere speculation.
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMere opinion?! LOL!!!!
Cherry picking lunacy? my dear sir, all the things written by Jason BeDhun can be
verified, all one needs to do is look at the text, follow the Greek syntax and idiom and it
becomes self evident that what he is talking about is true, the scholars you produce on
the other hand, produce mere opinions, therein lies the difference. It seems that ...[text shortened]... rious
machinations of those who would seek to banish them to the realms of mere
speculation.
When DeBruhn examines text it is 'self evident' and 'true' simply because it supports your position. When other scholars follow the same procedure and come to conclusions which don't support your position it nothing but 'mere opinions'. Hilarious.
22 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobDr BeDhun is not employing speculative methods, is he? Or drawing conclusions on the
Mere opinion?! LOL!!!!
When DeBruhn examines text it is 'self evident' and 'true' simply because it supports your position. When other scholars follow the same procedure and come to conclusions which don't support your position it nothing but 'mere opinions'. Hilarious.
basis of interpretation, is he?
22 Nov 12
Originally posted by FMFHe is not the only one i ever mention, i have mentioned on many occasions, Alfred
Talking of cherry picking, there are many thousands of 'bible scholars'; why is Jason BeDuhn the only one you ever mention?
Edersheim, again someone whose books i have actually read unlike you internet cherry
picking factories! I believe I also regularly cite historians from Suetonius, to Pliny, to
Gibbons etc, all of whose works are to be found in my library.
22 Nov 12
I find it amusing that people who do not believe or follow the Christian faith can
tell Christians they are doing it wrong when the Christians are doing what they
believe to be the correct thing. Who cares what that church does, if you do not
like the way they do things, find one that goes along with your views if they are
that important to you.
Kelly
22 Nov 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobfinding that over 1/3 of their vocabulary is not used anywhere else in the Pauline
What 'speculative methods' are other scholars employing in their critique of the text?
epistles; more than 1/5 is not used anywhere else in the New Testament, while 2/3
of the non-Pauline vocabulary are used by 2nd century
drawing conclusions on the basis of counting up the vocabulary and making a
comparison is proof of what? that Paul used a different style of prose or vocabulary
elsewhere, why is it nonsense, lets take a book like the book of Hebrews, written
specifically to the Hebrew christians, it is entirely logical to state that the many
terms and references to the Hebrew scriptures and characters would not be found
elsewhere, for its with a specific audience in mind. Again let us consider the book of
Revelation which is part of the so called New testament which contains again many
thoughts and expressions specific to that book making any comparison, as your so
called scholars have done and drawing conclusions on that basis purely speculative.
Its simply a nonsense to state that because a writer uses a different style, different
vocabulary that it brings into suspicion the authorship.