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.
And you can't disprove them. We both accept what we believe by faith alone. No matter how many times I tell you I don't trey to prove anything in he Bible, although I can prove more in it than you can prove what the TOE preaches.
Your OPINION that I came close to lying needs to be supported. It may seem that way to you because you lack understanding. Support your accusation with an example of where i came close to lying. I predict you will not.
WE both present our position in a highly biased manner. I just recognize it and admit it, you don't.
I acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah is mentioned many times throughout the OT.
Thank you, now let me give you some advice. Not only do I never try to prove anything in he Bible. I have said many times most of it can't be proved.
I focus on what the subject is. If anyone wants to discuss the wisdom of he 10 commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, I will gladly participate.
Communicating with you is a total waste of time.
Please continue your preaching. It only weakens your cause.
You don't understand plagiarism. If a statement is true, it can't be plagiarized. Anyone can use it. 100 writers can say Washington crossed the Delaware if he actually did and it would not be plagiarism.
You don't understand plagiarism. It is copying (with a few alterations - as Matthew does) what someone else has written. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant.
Quote:
DUUH. they both wanted him put to death
That is a typical Christian apologetic gimmick - take two conflicting stories that are intended to prove a point - take that as the 'point' and say that the rest doesn't matter. This is Faith -based denial working here, and dishonest craftiness.
Quote:
There are other examples, and it is always Matthew showing fatigue, which only makes sense if Matthew is copying Mark. And that is just one reasons how we know Matthew is NOT an independent eyewitness report.
It also works if Matthew is copying someone else's work and altering it to suit himself. Harry can argue his case, but I'd argue the two donkeys. The other three are specific about it being one but Matthew makes it two, because of a misreading of the OT text. This means that he can't be eyewitness. And that means that when we get altered script it is Matthew's wish to alter it that is the better explanation and not eyewitness differences. As well as any elements of word -copying that also shows that Matthew was working from a given text, not writing what he remembered.
Quote:
Using the same information, if it is true, is not copying and it is clear that Matthew was an eyewitness and sod was Mark. Some of the statement they made, they would have to have been with Jesus to know them.
Sod was Mark indeed, and Sod was Matthew. Indeed, sod were any of them 'eyewitness'. (your other typos fixed without prejudice or extra expense) You have utterly ignored my disproof of John, and I've given you one of Matthew. I'll give you one of Mark, now. Mark has two feedings - of 4,000 and 5,000.
Luke does not - it's a simple sequence of going to Bethany, feeding 5,000, declaration of Messiahship. transfiguration (which also isn't true as John doesn't have one and couldn't conceivably have just left it out) then back to Capernaum. And John - who most certainly was not copying mark, agrees with Luke. Thus Luke's version is correct, and Mark has added in stuff that is not true and no honest eyewitness would have done that.
Quote:
You have a misunderstanding of plagiarism, which is not an opinion and what constitutes copying, which is also not an opinion. I deny your understanding is correct.
You can (and do) deny what you like, or ignore it, like my debunk of John, since you can't honestly deny it, but the fact is that your understanding of plagiarism is incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
They, unlike you, understood them and did not see any contradictions.
They explained them away with whatever excuse came into their heads. However, better understanding has shown that their excuses do not stand up. Or that's my argument. You are welcome to counter any of the arguments I make (and I've got dozens of 'em - all pretty fatal to Gospel credibility) using the excuses of the church fathers or your own. Please yourself. None of 'em will do you much good.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-13-2019 at 04:19 PM..
Nothing wrong with sarcasm. It is a useful literary tool to emphasize a point.
True And therefore it is legitimate for us to do it to ram home a telling point. It is NOT legitimate in apologetics to use it to try to refute a point that you can't by employing sarcasm instead. It just makes you and your religion look cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Yes. Do you know when you have a poor translation?
Ah, yes, you were always eager to play the 'wrong translation' card. Even when it didn't make any difference. It's why I prefer to use solid contradictions that are the same even you use kjv.Such as the debunk of John that you continue to ignore. Let's see whether you ignore the others or...let me guess...'It's in the bible, so it must have happened'? Another favourite Ploy of yours.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-13-2019 at 04:19 PM..
Lie #12. God will provide ALL your needs. Rubbish! God doesn't provide squat! Just ask the thousands of Christian families living out of their cars or on skid row if God is providing their needs. Again, this is just pure propaganda courtesy of corrupt early church leaders trying to attract pagans to join their new faith with empty promises of riches. Christians crow when a friend prays for transportation and then finds a lost bus pass lying in the road. "See? God provided his need. He needed transportation to work and God sent him a bus pass!" Well, then why didn't God send him a brand new Ford or at least a slightly used one??? I thought God has so many riches in heaven that He's not in the habit of doling out 2nd-class merchandise. Isn't He able to provide something decent instead of a 2-bit solution to a very large problem? What a crock!
You don't understand plagiarism. If a statement is true, it can't be plagiarized. Anyone can use it. 100 writers can say Washington crossed the Delaware if he actually did and it would not be plagiarism.
Thanks for posting this. If your unreasoning blanket refusal to actually engage with the arguments was not sufficient to discredit you, then your ignorance of what plagiarism is, even after having it explained to you, shows your utter lack of knowledge or credibility.
You don't understand plagiarism. If a statement is true, it can't be plagiarized. Anyone can use it. 100 writers can say Washington crossed the Delaware if he actually did and it would not be plagiarism.
If I write a true statement, you can still plagiarize what I wrote. And if all your 100 writers used identical text, then they would be copying from one another. And without saying this, it is the subject you are ignorant of, plagiarism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
DUUH. they both wanted him put to death
Which is not the point. It is the changing of the text to make something that looks strange, such as Jesus being in a field while his family are outside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Using eh same information, if it is true, is not copying and it is clear that Matthew was an eyewitness and sod was Mark. Some of he statement they made, they would have to have been with Jesus o know them.
Again it is you who does not understand plagiarism. If different people use identical text (the truth of that text is irrelevant), then they are copying. Using this proven technique, it is clear Matthew was NOT an eyewitness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
You have a misunderstanding of plagiarism, which is not an opinion and what constitutes copying, which is also not an opinion. I deny your understanding is correct.
Thank you for your opinion, Kermit, i will file it in the relevant rubbish bin.
Lie #12. God will provide ALL your needs. Rubbish! God doesn't provide squat! Just ask the thousands of Christian families living out of their cars or on skid row if God is providing their needs. Again, this is just pure propaganda courtesy of corrupt early church leaders trying to attract pagans to join their new faith with empty promises of riches. Christians crow when a friend prays for transportation and then finds a lost bus pass lying in the road. "See? God provided his need. He needed transportation to work and God sent him a bus pass!" Well, then why didn't God send him a brand new Ford or at least a slightly used one??? I thought God has so many riches in heaven that He's not in the habit of doling out 2nd-class merchandise. Isn't He able to provide something decent instead of a 2-bit solution to a very large problem? What a crock!
Maybe these Christians have not been taught about the prosperity theology?
Yes. Do you know when you have a poor translation?
John 8:44.
And having a poor translation, you will never know why I am laughing.
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.
And therefore it is legitimate for us to do it to ram home a telling point. It is NOT legitimate in apologetics to use it to try to refute a point that you can't by employing sarcasm instead. It just makes you and your religion look cheap.
I thought God has so many riches in heaven that He's not in the habit of doling out 2nd-class merchandise. Isn't He able to provide something decent instead of a 2-bit solution to a very large problem? What a crock! 
