Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, the virgin prophecy was concerning Christ. No one was called Immanuel until Christ.
Isa 7:14 "Wherefore, Yahweh Himself will give a sign to you: Behold! the damsel shall be pregnant and bear a son, and you call his name Emmanu-El."
The "you" in "sign to you" is plural. It is spoken to the House of David, made up of a plurality of inhabitants. Christ came from the House of David. He was born of a virgin. A "sign" is a great supernatural event. It is not an ordinary event.
The Hebrew for "almah" is taken to mean "maiden." However, the Septuagint (LXX) translated "almah" as "parthenos" or "virgin." So the Hebrew translators knew "almah" in this verse should be taken as "virgin." That was translated around 200 years before Christ.
Jesus was called Joshua, not Immanuel. You is plural. It does refer to the Hebrew people, but not those of Jesus' time. I shall have to have another look at the Parthenos thing again..Yes, The problem was that the translators had only Parthenos (which like out 'maiden' can mean either a virgin or a young girl, virgin or not. The Jews used two words and Isaiah implies just a young girl. If Matthew had read iHebrew he would have known that it didn't mean virgo intacta. He only read Greek, and he had a head full of miraculous birth anyway. So he jumped to the conclusion that 'parthenos' mean a virgin rather than a young girl...so no, you don't have an argument.
Perhaps Jesus came of the House of David, the flurry of work with healings and a couple of conflicting genealogies makes me suspect that he actually didn't. Despite what Paul said. People are not born of virgins. John does not report it, nor Mark. It is a made up story.
Quote:
Sure, if we don't have any other historical account other than the Bible then it couldn't have occurred. Let's see, there are no historical records Herod ever urinated or pooped. Therefore he never did.
Urination or pooping is hardly the same as killing children. Moreover Herid is recorded as carrying out some killings of people who aroused his suspicions. A massacre of even a few kids in Bethlehem could hardly have escaped the notice of those who know of his other killings. And of course Mark and Luke do not record it, nor anything at all of the Matthian nativity. It is an invention.
Quote:
What prophecy is that?
John 11. 49
Quote:
How so? Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.
I don't believe it. mark does not record it and John positively denies it at 7.42. Together with the unworkable and contradictory nativities, the problem and how they tried to put it right rather belatedly is evident.
Quote:
It should.
Not when it shows clear signs of being taken out of context and mangled for the purposes of NT prophecy. This gives ius the clues we need to see through the Prophecy con.
Quote:
The "spear-thrust" is in the Synoptics, and is in the Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Not in our synoptics, and never was. Please do post the relevant passages from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I only found it in Matthew in the Alexandian synoptic. Just out of curiosity. The Synoptics we have mention many later additions, though not a spear -thrust. This is something added to the synoptics later on. And it isn't in Mark or Luke, in any of those Egyptian texts is it? If it was left out, I still would say it was invented, even if it was in our Latin synoptic. your Desert tomes do not help you at all.
Quote:
Mat_27:49 Yet the rest said, "Let be! We may see if Elijah is coming, and saving him.Now another, getting a lance head, pierces His side, and out came water and blood."
Joh_19:34 But one of the soldiers pierces His side with a lance head, and straightway out came blood and water."at's because it was a lance-head.
Adding a passage of John to Matthew does not amount to 'it is in Matthew'. You need to show it is Matthew as per Matthew, and even then it won't help your case.
Quote:
Just saying so does not prove so. Prove there are contradictions in Judas' death.
Ok. Judas could not buy a field with his money as he had already thrown it into the temple. One contradiction implies another. Hanging and bursting open do not sound a likely combination, despite ingenious attempt to combine them into one event - one cunning commentator even suggesting (since a fall from a tree won't cause you to burst) that Judas for some inexplicable reason, hung himself from a tree overhanging a cliff. Though well, that might make sense..but Acts suggest that the event happened in the field he supposedly bought or why would it be called 'Field of Blood?'
The bungled verses we could look at...if there was any point in doing it.
Quote:
Sorry to hear that.
Sorry to upset you, old pal. Doesn't incommode me in the least.
Quote:
Sure, uhhuh. Highly trained Roman soldiers, who knew they would get the death penalty if Christ's body was stolen, just let the disciples roll away the stone and take the body. Yea, uh huh. Sure.
Nobody else records the guard and it is a highly improbable story anyway. It is yet another of Matthew's absurd inventions. There was no guard.
Quote:
There is another reason that scenario (odd as it is) cannot be true. The body wrappings were all neatly folded where He lay. That doesn't sound like someone is trying to rush to steal a body.
And yet you surely know that there were no wrappings. there was one sheet - with a magical imprint on it. John's story collapsed right away.
Moreover Herod is recorded as carrying out some killings of people who aroused his suspicions. A massacre of even a few kids in Bethlehem could hardly have escaped the notice of those who know of his other killings. And of course Mark and Luke do not record it, nor anything at all of the Matthian nativity. It is an invention.
It is most probably an invention since it fits too neatly into Matthew's 'Jesus as the new Moses' meme.
But it is entirely within Herod's style to have done it. He would likely have had it done covertly and not connectable to him. Remember that virtually all we know about Herod's activities are from Josephus, who used Roman records as his sources and wrote many decades after the events. If it did happen, it is unlikely that it would have been recorded as something Herod did because it would have been done in secret. Herod already had enough trouble with insurrections. This would have been beyond the pale. (*)
On the other hand if it was so secret, how would Matthew know about it?
(*) Without looking it up does anyone know what 'the pale' is?
Jesus was called Joshua, not Immanuel. You is plural. It does refer to the Hebrew people, but not those of Jesus' time. I shall have to have another look at the Parthenos thing again..Yes, The problem was that the translators had only Parthenos (which like out 'maiden' can mean either a virgin or a young girl, virgin or not. The Jews used two words and Isaiah implies just a young girl. If Matthew had read iHebrew he would have known that it didn't mean virgo intacta. He only read Greek, and he had a head full of miraculous birth anyway. So he jumped to the conclusion that 'parthenos' mean a virgin rather than a young girl...so no, you don't have an argument.
No, Jesus was called pronouncingly: "Yaysoos". Maybe in Hebrew He might have been called Yaheshua.
The important thing to know is that there was no miraculous virgin birth when Isaiah said that. It can only be that of Jesus Christ born of the virgin, Mary.
No, Matthew really, really, really knew his Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew and absolutely knew the word should be "virgin."
Quote:
Perhaps Jesus came of the House of David, the flurry of work with healings and a couple of conflicting genealogies makes me suspect that he actually didn't. Despite what Paul said. People are not born of virgins. John does not report it, nor Mark. It is a made up story.
Those were the same genealogies in the temple. They were very good at record keeping. They got the genealogies correct.
Quote:
Urination or pooping is hardly the same as killing children. Moreover Herid is recorded as carrying out some killings of people who aroused his suspicions. A massacre of even a few kids in Bethlehem could hardly have escaped the notice of those who know of his other killings. And of course Mark and Luke do not record it, nor anything at all of the Matthian nativity. It is an invention.
It's the point. Your mantra is if it wasn't written in all four accounts it didn't happen. If no one wrote about it outside the Bible it didn't happen. You can't have it your way. This isn't Burger King.
Quote:
I don't believe it. mark does not record it and John positively denies it at 7.42. Together with the unworkable and contradictory nativities, the problem and how they tried to put it right rather belatedly is evident.
There is one nativity where the shepherds meet your true Messiah and 2 years later the wise men meet your true Messiah and Saviour at His home when He was a boy.
Quote:
Not when it shows clear signs of being taken out of context and mangled for the purposes of NT prophecy. This gives ius the clues we need to see through the Prophecy con.
If you say so.
Quote:
Not in our synoptics, and never was. Please do post the relevant passages from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I only found it in Matthew in the Alexandian synoptic. Just out of curiosity. The Synoptics we have mention many later additions, though not a spear -thrust. This is something added to the synoptics later on. And it isn't in Mark or Luke, in any of those Egyptian texts is it? If it was left out, I still would say it was invented, even if it was in our Latin synoptic. your Desert tomes do not help you at all.
In the Concordant Greek Text, which is a compiliation of the Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus with some miniscules, the spear thrust is in all three. If it was not in just one, it would be marked in the superlinear. If not in any of the three, it would have been noted in the superlinear. I have the full size manuscript copies on hard stock here from the British Museum but at the moment am too lazy to go through them.
Quote:
Adding a passage of John to Matthew does not amount to 'it is in Matthew'. You need to show it is Matthew as per Matthew, and even then it won't help your case.
No I don't.
Quote:
Ok. Judas could not buy a field with his money as he had already thrown it into the temple. One contradiction implies another. Hanging and bursting open do not sound a likely combination, despite ingenious attempt to combine them into one event - one cunning commentator even suggesting (since a fall from a tree won't cause you to burst) that Judas for some inexplicable reason, hung himself from a tree overhanging a cliff. Though well, that might make sense..but Acts suggest that the event happened in the field he supposedly bought or why would it be called 'Field of Blood?'
The bungled verses we could look at...if there was any point in doing it.
Sigh. Who said Judas purchased the field himself?
Matthew 27:6-7 Now the chief priests, taking the silver pieces, said, "It is not allowed to cast them into the corban, since it is the price of blood." (7) Now, holding a consultation, they buy with them the Field of the Potter for a sepulcher for strangers."
Acts 1:15-18 And in these days Peter, rising in the midst of the brethren, (besides there was a throng in the same place of about a hundred and twenty names)" (16) said, "Men! Brethren! Fulfilled must be the scripture in which the holy spirit said before through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who becomes the guide of those apprehending Jesus, (17) seeing that he was numbered among us, and chanced upon the allotment of this dispensation." (18) (This man, indeed, then, acquires a freehold with the wages of injustice, and coming to fall prone, ruptures in the middle, and all his intestines were poured out."
Since the chief priests used Judas' money, it could be said Judas provided the funds for the purchase of the field.
For instance did Pilate himself scourge Jesus?
Joh 19:1 Then Pilate took Jesus, then, and scourges Him."
I bet his soldiers did it for him. But since he told them to, the responsibility rests with him.
Likewise, the responsibility of providing the means of purchasing the field lied with Judas.
Quote:
Sorry to upset you, old pal. Doesn't incommode me in the least.
Nobody else records the guard and it is a highly improbable story anyway. It is yet another of Matthew's absurd inventions. There was no guard.
Not only is it a probable story that the guards were set at the tomb and witnessed the resurrection of your Saviour, but what is improbable is the guards allowed the disciples to steal the body under penalty of death.
Quote:
And yet you surely know that there were no wrappings. there was one sheet - with a magical imprint on it. John's story collapsed right away.
They wrapped the body in swathings and put a handkerchief over His face.
Luk_24:12 Yet Peter, rising, ran to the tomb, and peering in, is observing the swathings only. And he came away marveling to himself at that which has occurred."
Joh_19:40 They got the body of Jesus, then, and they bind it in swathings with the spices, according as the custom of the Jews is to bury."
Joh_20:5 And, peering in, he is observing the swathings lying. Howbeit, he did not enter."
Joh_20:6 Simon Peter also, then, is coming, following him, and he entered into the tomb and he is beholding the swathings lying,
Joh_20:7 and the handkerchief which was on His head, not lying with the swathings, but folded up in one place apart."
Body snatchers do not neatly fold body garments while the guards are there. They would rush in and out as fast as they could.
Old friend, there is nothing here but denial. I have given reasons why a compounding of a supposed atrocity by Herod and the lack of mention of it by the other writers is good reason to doubt it, in addition to the story itself contradicting Luke and being very clumsy and improbable.
If you won't buy that, that is your privilege. I'm leaving it to others to decide for themselves and just repeating thatI I find it good enough reasons not to accept the claim of prophecy, Bible accuracy or the Gospels as deserving musch credit.
Now, as to Judas' buying the field, Acts says clearly that the money was used to buy the field. Whether he bought it himself, or got someone to buy it for him, it was used with the silver he got for shopping Jesus. He couldn't have done it -or got anyone else to do it - if he had slung the money down in the temple. Matthew says that the Priests bought a field with it, so Judas evidently hadn't changed his mind and picked the silver up again.
Old friend, there is nothing here but denial. I have given reasons why a compounding of a supposed atrocity by Herod and the lack of mention of it by the other writers is good reason to doubt it, in addition to the story itself contradicting Luke and being very clumsy and improbable.
Do we have written down, even by historians, everything Herod did? Everything?
Why wouldn't Herod want to kill off the boys in that small village to get at the One Who he thought might be a threat to him? And who is to say historians in that day did not write about it? Do we have ALL the writings of ALL historians 2,000 years removed from our day today?
Just how, as you suggest, does the story of the killing of some infants contradict Luke? Also, the prophecy written of it never came to fruition until Herod killed the boys. Oh, wait, did Herod go himself and kill the boys? Did Judas himself purchase the field?
Quote:
If you won't buy that, that is your privilege. I'm leaving it to others to decide for themselves and just repeating thatI I find it good enough reasons not to accept the claim of prophecy, Bible accuracy or the Gospels as deserving musch credit.
The gospels are very accurate. You are just drinking from the dirty well of the naysayers, that's all. Daniel predicted prophetically the exact year the Messiah would appear as Prince from the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem till the Messiah as Prince was an exact number of years. It came to pass. This is why only Jesus can be the Messiah as Prince prophesied by Daniel.
Quote:
Now, as to Judas' buying the field, Acts says clearly that the money was used to buy the field. Whether he bought it himself, or got someone to buy it for him, it was used with the silver he got for shopping Jesus. He couldn't have done it -or got anyone else to do it - if he had slung the money down in the temple. Matthew says that the Priests bought a field with it, so Judas evidently hadn't changed his mind and picked the silver up again.
Do you think it is even remotely possible the priests purchased the field in Judas' name from his money?
Do we have written down, even by historians, everything Herod did? Everything?
Why wouldn't Herod want to kill off the boys in that small village to get at the One Who he thought might be a threat to him? And who is to say historians in that day did not write about it? Do we have ALL the writings of ALL historians 2,000 years removed from our day today?
Just how, as you suggest, does the story of the killing of some infants contradict Luke? Also, the prophecy written of it never came to fruition until Herod killed the boys. Oh, wait, did Herod go himself and kill the boys? Did Judas himself purchase the field?
It is just possible - but not likely, as Herod's misdeeds are pretty fully documented - that history overlooked a massacre of a few kids in Bethlehem (whether by Herod or by a few unidentified men - it is always possible to invent explanations to argue away a problem) but for me, not for you, I concede, that this event with the whole of that nativity and the contradictory genealogy in a document that demonstrably ought to contain material common to all three, the sheer silliness of the story and the stating of the problem of non -birth in Bethlehem by John convinces me utterly that it is a rather clumsy invention by Matthew. You are wasting your posting time trying to sell it to me as credible.
Quote:
The gospels are very accurate. You are just drinking from the dirty well of the naysayers, that's all. Daniel predicted prophetically the exact year the Messiah would appear as Prince from the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem till the Messiah as Prince was an exact number of years. It came to pass. This is why only Jesus can be the Messiah as Prince prophesied by Daniel.
Old chum, more denial, and we have done Daniel. I asked you to substantiate your claim that his dates came down to 1st c AD and I got nothing.
Quote:
Do you think it is even remotely possible the priests purchased the field in Judas' name from his money?
I was wondering whether you'd think of that No, I do not think it remotely possible that they purchased a field in Judas' name. I was thinking that you might have made a better excuse...sorry explanation in saying that they bought a field with the money and somehow Luke got the wrong idea that it was Judas who bought the farm, not just his money.
But then, where on earth would he have got that info from? The field retailer would just know that the Sanhedrin had bought a field to bury foreigners in and how would he or anyone else know where the money had come from?
Yes, You could postulate that they jokingly said: 'This is Judas' money - put to good use.' (merry Sadducee laughter) or some Sanhedrin deconvert to Christianity told the whole story later on. But even then, you'd expect the correct story to get known, why a garbled version that seemed to conflict with Matthew or Matthew with Luke?
The answer old chum is the same that any honest and open - minded person, not intent on faith -based eradication of discrepancies, contradictions and fallacies in the gospels by any means must come to, as regards the nativities, resurrection, calling of disciples, rejection at Nazareth, Sinking Simon, the descending angel, shekel -eating fish and a host more problems. They made their stories up.
We are way off -topic, and Mensa is letting me have a lot of rope. Since I am running out of brown envelopes, let me just say that, in addition to all this a comparison of the OT text grubbed out of the ground to wind around these daft stories of Judas' death to make them look like natural growth, when compared to the ghastly distortion in the gospels, should convince anyone who hasn't torn out their eyes (there is a cartoon - aimed at Bible deniers ironically (1) that we have here a right pair - Luke and Matthew: and liar and a dunce.
Live long and prosper Eusebius old mate and be a chum, not a chump.
It is just possible - but not likely, as Herod's misdeeds are pretty fully documented - that history overlooked a massacre of a few kids in Bethlehem (whether by Herod or by a few unidentified men - it is always possible to invent explanations to argue away a problem) but for me, not for you, I concede, that this event with the whole of that nativity and the contradictory genealogy in a document that demonstrably ought to contain material common to all three, the sheer silliness of the story and the stating of the problem of non -birth in Bethlehem by John convinces me utterly that it is a rather clumsy invention by Matthew. You are wasting your posting time trying to sell it to me as credible.
Neither Mark nor John write about Jesus' birth. Therefore He was never born. And since they don't write about Harod's birth, he was never born either. By the way, I'm not selling anything.
Quote:
Old chum, more denial, and we have done Daniel. I asked you to substantiate your claim that his dates came down to 1st c AD and I got nothing.
I was wondering whether you'd think of that No, I do not think it remotely possible that they purchased a field in Judas' name. I was thinking that you might have made a better excuse...sorry explanation in saying that they bought a field with the money and somehow Luke got the wrong idea that it was Judas who bought the farm, not just his money.
But then, where on earth would he have got that info from? The field retailer would just know that the Sanhedrin had bought a field to bury foreigners in and how would he or anyone else know where the money had come from?
I'm sure the early church had many Jewish priests come over to the truth and align themselves with that early church and gave them the information needed.
Quote:
Yes, You could postulate that they jokingly said: 'This is Judas' money - put to good use.' (merry Sadducee laughter) or some Sanhedrin deconvert to Christianity told the whole story later on. But even then, you'd expect the correct story to get known, why a garbled version that seemed to conflict with Matthew or Matthew with Luke?
I don't believe it conflicts with the three gospels.
Example: It is said Joseph's brothers sold him into Egypt. But they only sold him to the Ishmaelites who were going to Egypt:
Gen 37:25 And sitting down are they to eat bread. And lifting are they their eyes and seeing, and behold! A caravan of Ishmaelites are coming from Gilead with their camels, bearing perfume and balm and labdanum, going by to go down to Egypt."
But the Midianites (who are Ishmaelites) sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar:
Gen 37:36 And the Midianites sell Joseph to Egypt, to Potiphar, a eunuch of Pharaoh, chief of the executioners.
But actually, the money paid for Joseph to his brothers did get him to Egypt. So just as Judas gave the money back to the priests, they used HIS money to buy the field so it was HIS field bought with HIS money. Dig?
Quote:
The answer old chum is the same that any honest and open - minded person, not intent on faith -based eradication of discrepancies, contradictions and fallacies in the gospels by any means must come to, as regards the nativities, resurrection, calling of disciples, rejection at Nazareth, Sinking Simon, the descending angel, shekel -eating fish and a host more problems. They made their stories up.
Well, if you say so, we must all bow to your authority on the matter. Now we can just throw our brains away and rely on you.
Quote:
We are way off -topic, and Mensa is letting me have a lot of rope. Since I am running out of brown envelopes, let me just say that, in addition to all this a comparison of the OT text grubbed out of the ground to wind around these daft stories of Judas' death to make them look like natural growth, when compared to the ghastly distortion in the gospels, should convince anyone who hasn't torn out their eyes (there is a cartoon - aimed at Bible deniers ironically (1) that we have here a right pair - Luke and Matthew: and liar and a dunce.
Live long and prosper Eusebius old mate and be a chum, not a chump.
You seem to keep doing with that rope Mensa gave you the same as Judas did to himself.
You also seem to be deceived by modern day people who love to poo poo the Bible. I wish you could see how badly you've been deceived but, like the cartoon, you have no eyes to see until God gives you sight. It will be given. Jesus is your Saviour whether you know it or not. You just have to wait a little longer before you enter into a realization of that.
Neither Mark nor John write about Jesus' birth. Therefore He was never born. And since they don't write about Harod's birth, he was never born either. By the way, I'm not selling anything.
I'm sure the early church had many Jewish priests come over to the truth and align themselves with that early church and gave them the information needed.
I don't believe it conflicts with the three gospels.
Example: It is said Joseph's brothers sold him into Egypt. But they only sold him to the Ishmaelites who were going to Egypt:
Gen 37:25 And sitting down are they to eat bread. And lifting are they their eyes and seeing, and behold! A caravan of Ishmaelites are coming from Gilead with their camels, bearing perfume and balm and labdanum, going by to go down to Egypt."
But the Midianites (who are Ishmaelites) sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar:
Gen 37:36 And the Midianites sell Joseph to Egypt, to Potiphar, a eunuch of Pharaoh, chief of the executioners.
But actually, the money paid for Joseph to his brothers did get him to Egypt. So just as Judas gave the money back to the priests, they used HIS money to buy the field so it was HIS field bought with HIS money. Dig?
Well, if you say so, we must all bow to your authority on the matter. Now we can just throw our brains away and rely on you.
You seem to keep doing with that rope Mensa gave you the same as Judas did to himself.
You also seem to be deceived by modern day people who love to poo poo the Bible. I wish you could see how badly you've been deceived but, like the cartoon, you have no eyes to see until God gives you sight. It will be given. Jesus is your Saviour whether you know it or not. You just have to wait a little longer before you enter into a realization of that.
Well, Old mate, it may be time to draw a line under this as your post seems to be just doing the old denial, not responding, referring me to other sources - and telling me to go and research your evidence for you rather than make your own case - rambling on about Potiphar and Joseph (1), making absurd comparisons between the religiously staggeringly important birth of Jesus, miracles, prophecy -fulfilment and all with the staggeringly unimportant in terms of religion birth of Herod. You must surely see it, dear old Eusebius, how you are wriggling and evading with all sorts of dishonest (2) and evasive non -arguments the evidence that mounts up against the gospels being at all reliable as prophecy or eyewitness testimony.
(1) Yes I dig. I dig that two non contradictory events in one story resulting in Joseph ending up in Egypt is misused to argue that two conflicting accounts of one and the same action are somehow the same because they ended up with his money at least buying a field. Yes I dig perfectly.
(2) The sarcastic sneer and smear ploy of "Well, if you say so, we must all bow to your authority on the matter. Now we can just throw our brains away and rely on you" must represent the shortest New Years' resolution ever. Business as usual, eh, old mate? You know - and I have said this before - that I am an authority for nothing and never claim to be. There is only one of us who makes plonking flat statements of fact without any evidence - in fact in despite of the evidence - and expects it to be accepted on your say so (cue the projection -police) and it ain't me. I only ever put the evidence and ask people to judge with an open mind.
You can never do that old pal, because your faith blinds you, but it doesn't matter. You couldn't be a better bad example of what religious belief does to a person if you worked hard at it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-07-2015 at 09:49 AM..
Well, Old mate, it may be time to draw a line under this as your post seems to be just doing the old denial, not responding, referring me to other sources - and telling me to go and research your evidence for you rather than make your own case - rambling on about Potiphar and Joseph (1), making absurd comparisons between the religiously staggeringly important birth of Jesus, miracles, prophecy -fulfilment and all with the staggeringly unimportant in terms of religion birth of Herod. You must surely see it, dear old Eusebius, how you are wriggling and evading with all sorts of dishonest (2) and evasive non -arguments the evidence that mounts up against the gospels being at all reliable as prophecy or eyewitness testimony.
(1) Yes I dig. I dig that two non contradictory events in one story resulting in Joseph ending up in Egypt is misused to argue that two conflicting accounts of one and the same action are somehow the same because they ended up with his money at least buying a field. Yes I dig perfectly.
(2) The sarcastic sneer and smear ploy of "Well, if you say so, we must all bow to your authority on the matter. Now we can just throw our brains away and rely on you" must represent the shortest New Years' resolution ever. Business as usual, eh, old mate? You know - and I have said this before - that I am an authority for nothing and never claim to be. There is only one of us who makes plonking flat statements of fact without any evidence - in fact in despite of the evidence - and expects it to be accepted on your say so (cue the projection -police) and it ain't me. I only ever put the evidence and ask people to judge with an open mind.
You can never do that old pal, because your faith blinds you, but it doesn't matter. You couldn't be a better bad example of what religious belief does to a person if you worked hard at it.
Well, I thought I would play on your cartoon about throwing the eyes in the waste basket and so figured you'd get the association with throwing our brains away. Sorry, I was wrong.
Well, I thought I would play on your cartoon about throwing the eyes in the waste basket and so figured you'd get the association with throwing our brains away. Sorry, I was wrong.
You usually are, old son.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doesn't incommode me in the least.
explanation in saying that they bought a field with the money and somehow Luke got the wrong idea that it was Judas who bought the farm, not just his money.
(1) that we have here a right pair - Luke and Matthew: and liar and a dunce. 
And since they don't write about Harod's birth, he was never born either. By the way, I'm not selling anything.
Business as usual, eh, old mate? You know - and I have said this before - that I am an authority for nothing and never claim to be. There is only one of us who makes plonking flat statements of fact without any evidence - in fact in despite of the evidence - and expects it to be accepted on your say so (cue the projection -police) and it ain't me. I only ever put the evidence and ask people to judge with an open mind.
You couldn't be a better bad example of what religious belief does to a person if you worked hard at it.
