03 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy should I explain what I never claimed??
Why again would an omnipotent God be afraid of the Pharisees? Explain the "logic" behind that, Coletti.
Now you need to make the argument the I claimed God was afraid of the Pharisees. Aren't you getting tired of arguing from baseless claims?
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou are a liar.
Why should I explain what I never claimed??
Now you need to make the argument the I claimed God was afraid of the Pharisees. Aren't you getting tired of arguing from baseless claims?
Coletti: Jesus never came out and declare his deity. If he had, the Pharisees could have legally stoned him on the spot. But there were many instances were one could easily interpret what he said as a declaration of his deity - which was what pissed off the Pharisees until they couldn't stand it and finally had him crucified. But they had to come up with false witnesses to do it. If been explicit, they could have simply killed him right out.
I'm sure you'll nitpick and say you never used the word "afraid" but to say that someone practiced deception to avoid being "killed right out" is saying that were afraid of being killed. Jesus could have avoided being killed by the Pharisees whenever he wanted couldn't he? Don't you ever get tired of spouting illogical, contradictory rubbish?
03 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, being prematurily crucified would ruin the story, which would explain the hush-hush request to people Jesus helped, but I can't find the place where enough miracles are accrued to convince people that Jesus was a god and therefore safe to crucify.
You are a liar.
Coletti: Jesus never came out and declare his deity. If he had, the Pharisees could have legally stoned him on the spot. But there were many instances were one could easily interpret what he said as ...[text shortened]... you ever get tired of spouting illogical, contradictory rubbish?
What was the defining moment, I wonder?
03 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightAssuming Jesus was God he could not be prematurely crucified and a fear that he would could not be a reason for subterfuge. I remember a similar argument with Darfius: he was excusing all the butchery done by the Israelites in the OT as necessary because if the Jews had been destroyed, there wouldn't have been a Savior. Why God would have been limited to only a Savior from the Jews was not something he could explain, except because the OT said so. The point is if God is all-powerful, then human beings cannot possibly stop what he intends ergo 1) There was going to be a Savior whether the Israelites slaughtered everybody they could get their hands on or not; and 2) The Pharisees could not possibly have stoned to death Jesus. So both this assertions are illogical if God is omnipotent and Jesus was God.
Well, being prematurily crucified would ruin the story, which would explain the hush-hush request to people Jesus helped, but I can't find the place where enough miracles are accrued to convince people that Jesus was a god and therefore safe to crucify.
What was the defining moment, I wonder?
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYa I can see what you are saying, it's hard to deal with a character who is all-powerful in a story some people would like to enact into laws that we all must live under.
Assuming Jesus was God he could not be prematurely crucified and a fear that he would could not be a reason for subterfuge. I remember a similar argument with Darfius: he was excusing all the butchery done by the Israelites in the OT as necessary because if the Jews had been destroyed, there wouldn't have been a Savior. Why God would have been l ...[text shortened]... ed to death Jesus. So both this assertions are illogical if God is omnipotent and Jesus was God.
I think that's what you are saying, anyways ...
03 Jun 05
1 edit
From a Roman Tombstone:
"Do not pass by my epitaph, traveler.
But having stopped, listen and learn, then go your way.
There is no boat in Hades, no ferryman Charon,
No caretaker Aiakos, no dog Cerberus.
All we who are dead below
Have become bones and ashes, but nothing else.
I have spoken to you honestly, go on, traveler,
Lest even while dead I seem loquacious to you."
Of all of myriad beliefs, thoughts and ideas, perhaps this is the most honest. Perhaps, faced with death this lonely soul had a moment of clarity, a purity of thought that led him to the truth. The Gods of entropy claimed him as they will most assuredly claim all of us. We spend our lives fearing death, trying to escape its embrace and ultimately we live a lesser life because of this.
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstomp
You can't answer a simple request without trying to be insulting?
Considering you are being a suckup to to the Paulines maybe you should be reading the word of the Kingdom and praying to Christ to save you from being "saved"
What's all this rubbish about me sucking up to somebody ?
What's all this rubbish about Paulinism ?
It's time you open some threads of your own, explain yourself, stop sucking up to No1 and stop being his lapdog.
04 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeBesides being a jerk what else is your problem?
What's all this rubbish about me sucking up to somebody ?
What's all this rubbish about Paulinism ?
It's time you open some threads of your own, explain yourself, stop sucking up to No1 and stop being his lapdog.
edit removed the wasted space that had your name on it.
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
What a moron! Where do I state that??? I am saying that in the context of this passage THIS PARTICULAR RHETORICAL QUESTION IS A DENIAL. Can you possibly get that distinction through your lead encased skull? Thus, there is no "begging of the question" , twit.
Being abusive will just get more of your posts modded. 😀
That this particular question is a denial is what you're trying to prove; it is the QED of your argument. If you assert it as a premise, then it is merely circular reasoning. If you are not, then you need a more general premise that questions in contexts of a certain form are always denials.
Originally posted by no1marauder
You guys spend a whole lot of time arguing that Jesus really didn't mean what he says like in Matthew 25. What kind of "Christians" are you? I noticed you have also dodged the question concerning Jesus' lack of knowledge of the day and hour of the Second Coming. Is there any part of Jesus' words that you do believe in?
Mk 13:32 has been traditionally interpreted as Jesus speaking in his capacity as true man, the "second Adam", from his human nature.
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf you are not, then you need a more general premise that questions in contexts of a certain form are always denials.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]What a moron! Where do I state that??? I am saying that in the context of this passage THIS PARTICULAR RHETORICAL QUESTION IS A DENIAL. Can you possibly get that distinction through your lead encased skull? Thus, there is no "begging of the question" , twit.
Being abusive will just get more of your ...[text shortened]... reted as Jesus speaking in his capacity as true man, the "second Adam", from his human nature.[/b]
No, I don't. I don't know where you people get the idea that every time someone looks at a document to interpret it they MUST put their argument in some form of formal, deductive logic so that an assertion of the text's meaning must be tautologically true; very few documents could be interpreted in this way. I follow standard rules set for the legal interpretation of documents here i.e. when the words are clear you need look no further for their meaning and that every part of a document is assumed to have a meaning. There is a certain amount of, for lack of a better term, "common sense" involved; I submit that if we were talking about anything but the Bible no one would assert that the passage wasn't an implicit denial. You are confusing intrepretation of a text which does not require "premises" with a formal argument that does. My "premise" is that the guy called Jesus good and Jesus told him (in effect) not to call him good cuz only God is good. Thus, the "premises" are the statements made and their clear meaning. If you want to argue differently than you have to show that Jesus didn't object to be called good and he surely did.
04 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you're talking about common sense, then it is common sense not to interpret isolated statements in a document without considering the context of the statement and the overall message of the document. That is all Coletti, ivanhoe and I are doing - interpreting this statement of Jesus in the context of this particular event (the question of the young rich man) and what the overall Gospel says about Jesus. Since your interpretation of this statement (and it is one among multiple interpretations) is not consonant with the overall context of the Gospel, it is common sense to assume that this is not what the author (or Jesus) intended. You can't have it both ways.
If you are not, then you need a more general premise that questions in contexts of a certain form are always denials.
No, I don't. I don't know where you people get the idea that every time someone looks at a document to interpret it they MUST put their argument in some form of formal, deductive logic so that an assertion of the text's mean ...[text shortened]... differently than you have to show that Jesus didn't object to be called good and he surely did.
Every time you assert "A implies B", you are making an argument. Any argument can be expressed in formal logic. Stating it thus makes it clear what the structure and validity of the argument is.
If legal principles of textual interpretation are what you are using here, then I must conclude either:
a) You are not applying the principles correctly.
or
b) The principles contradict common sense and, therefore, I would consider them flawed.
Unlike you, I do not consider the American legal system the pinnacle of human thought and reason.