Apologetic follies

SteveB

Well-known member
I was using The Bible to try and remind you what your own faith says about insulting people. You know. To not do it.

But if telling us that we are a bunch of ignorant, lazy, poo poo heads makes you happy then go for it brother! I have to admit I enjoy your posts. There is a purity to them that I find entertaining.

And I personally am not insulted in the slightest - so go nuts.
And yet you're not paying attention, as demonstrated by your failure to engage in discussion.
 

sbell

Active member
🤔🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

That you actually believe that you know what I know is hilarious.

I'm curious.

Do you actually know what I know, or are you thinking that because you don't actually know what I know, I'm not allowed to have learned anything?
Steve, I know you think we're a bunch of jackasses, but God has been known to speak to his people through jackasses before, so perhaps he's been sending you a message through the non-Christians to be nice, but you don't really want to hear it. Maybe something to consider.
 

Woody50

Well-known member
Yeah... Woody thinks that because the boiling point of water varies by environmental factors we can't know anything at all. It's as stupid as it gets around here.
LOL. You're hilarious.

Water doesn't boil at 212 even in consistent environmental factors. It's obvious you've never tested this (I thought this was what scientists DO?), but you just believe people who believe as you do.

Laughable...all of you.

Science never says anything. You know this, right???

Only scientists do...

I like science...

"Scientists" are just plain stupid.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Steve, I know you think we're a bunch of jackasses, but God has been known to speak to his people through jackasses before, so perhaps he's been sending you a message through the non-Christians to be nice, but you don't really want to hear it. Maybe something to consider.
Well, it's clear he isn't talking through you, because I don't think you're a bunch of jackasses.

If he gave you his Spirit to speak through you, as people who are condemned by your sin, I for one would love to see it.

Furthermore, if God was actually speaking through you guys, you would be telling me that what I'm saying from the bible is true, instead of arguing.

So, let me know when you get to that point. Until then, please just stop.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Solely because you have chosen to not take the time to learn.

Pity.

YHVH says

Jer 24:7 WEB I will give them a heart to know me, that I am Yahweh. They will be my people, and I will be their God; for they will return to me with their whole heart.​

Then Jesus said

Joh 17:3 WEB This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.​

He also said,


Mat 17:20 He said to them, “Because of your unbelief. For most certainly I tell you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will tell this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.

Mat 19:26 Looking at them, Jesus said, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”​

Mar 10:27 Jesus, looking at them, said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God, for all things are possible with God.”

Luk 1:37 For nothing spoken by God is impossible.”


Luk 18:27 But he said, “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.”

So, tell me again that what I've learned to actually know and experience is not possible.
Yeah... that's a lot of garbage. None of that is true.
 

5wize

Well-known member
LOL. You're hilarious.

Water doesn't boil at 212 even in consistent environmental factors. It's obvious you've never tested this (I thought this was what scientists DO?), but you just believe people who believe as you do.

Laughable...all of you.

Science never says anything. You know this, right???

Only scientists do...

I like science...

"Scientists" are just plain stupid.
LoL, yeah, we also know God never says anything either.

Only Christians do.

I like God.

"Christians" are just plain stupid.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Yeah... that's a lot of garbage. None of that is true.
Actually it is true.
Not just true, but it's objectively true.

2Sa 7:28 WEB “Now, O Lord Yahweh, you are God, and your words are truth, and you have promised this good thing to your servant.

Psa 119:142 WEBYour righteousness is an everlasting righteousness. Your law is truth.

What you've refused to consider is that it's impossible for YHVH to lie.


Heb 6:18 WEB that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to take hold of the hope set before us.


So, yes actually. They are true.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
When they found the tomb:

- was it open or sealed?
Stone rolled away.....Was your contradiction whether the earthquake of angel rolled it away?
- was there an angel?

Yes, there seemed to be two angels. Maybe 3...Luke being more of a historian mentioned there were two of the...the others wrote about just the one of them who was speaking. Is that your contradiction/
- was there anyone inside the tomb?

Well, Jesus wasn't there.

Is your question was there an angel present when they went in...then two more appear? Would that be a contradiction?
These are not details - they are contradicted in each Gospel - thus undermining an already shaky credibility.
I really wish you had the ability to express your so-called contradictions with verses rather than what your cut-and-paste web site said.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
They're both right...they thell of the same account. That's Pretty much a no-brainer.
They can't be. One account says he hung himself, the other that he fell headlong into a field and his guts burst open. I hope you're not going to say he hung himself and then fell headlong?
 

5wize

Well-known member
I could not have embarrassed you more than you did just now.

Mic drop...
Somehow I sense that this is an isolated personal observation of yours were we are left looking at each other puzzled as to why he couldn't hang onto the mic and where the heck did he go and why?
 

5wize

Well-known member
Actually it is true.
Not just true, but it's objectively true.

2Sa 7:28 WEB “Now, O Lord Yahweh, you are God, and your words are truth, and you have promised this good thing to your servant.

Psa 119:142 WEBYour righteousness is an everlasting righteousness. Your law is truth.

What you've refused to consider is that it's impossible for YHVH to lie.


Heb 6:18 WEB that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to take hold of the hope set before us.


So, yes actually. They are true.
Actually? You've never been able to "actualize anything you write as worth believing. You adhere to an ancient supernatural dogma that has no relevance no matter how much of it you quote. It forces you to live in ignorance of the truth of reality and rely on scriptural bromides to form a sense of substance for you that lacks any real credibility or substance. It's sad really how you have wasted your mind in this way.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
They can't be. One account says he hung himself, the other that he fell headlong into a field and his guts burst open. I hope you're not going to say he hung himself and then fell headlong?
That's exactly what I'm going to say.

Here's what I found on the topic...

Concerning how Judas died, here is a simple reconciliation of the facts: Judas hanged himself in the potter’s field (Matthew 27:5), and that is how he died. Then, after his body had begun to decay and bloat, the rope broke, or the branch of the tree he was using broke, and his body fell, bursting open on the land of the potter’s field (Acts 1:18–19). Note that Luke does not say that Judas died from the fall, only that his body fell. The Acts passage presumes Judas’s hanging, as a man falling down in a field does not normally result in his body bursting open. Only decomposition and a fall from a height could cause a body to burst open. So Matthew mentions the actual cause of death, and Luke focuses more on the horror surrounding it.

Prior to posting your nonsense....you should do your homework first.

I trust you syand corrected.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Why would you say this? Why would anyone say this? It is as manifestly false as any of the garbage about atheists that people post.
It was a parody of what Woody said about scientists. It was purely rhetorical in context of his statement. I don't believe that personally.
 

5wize

Well-known member
That's exactly what I'm going to say.

Here's what I found on the topic...

Concerning how Judas died, here is a simple reconciliation of the facts: Judas hanged himself in the potter’s field (Matthew 27:5), and that is how he died. Then, after his body had begun to decay and bloat, the rope broke, or the branch of the tree he was using broke, and his body fell, bursting open on the land of the potter’s field (Acts 1:18–19). Note that Luke does not say that Judas died from the fall, only that his body fell. The Acts passage presumes Judas’s hanging, as a man falling down in a field does not normally result in his body bursting open. Only decomposition and a fall from a height could cause a body to burst open. So Matthew mentions the actual cause of death, and Luke focuses more on the horror surrounding it.

Prior to posting your nonsense....you should do your homework first.

I trust you syand corrected.
Nope...
We do not have here one story that can be reconciled and made into a mega-narrative, the way conservative Christians have always tried to do. Instead, we have two stories that simply are at odds because both of them contain legendary elements.
  • In Matthew’s account, the priests buy the field; in Acts it is Judas himself who buys it.
  • In Matthew’s account, Judas hangs himself; in Acts he falls headlong, bursts open, and spills his intestines on the field.
  • In Matthew’s account, it is a clear suicide; in Acts there is no reference to a suicide.
  • In Matthew’s account, the place is called the Field of Blood because it was purchased with blood money. In Acts, it is called the Field of Blood because Judas spilled his blood on it.
 

Algor

Active member
It was a parody of what Woody said about scientists. It was purely rhetorical in context of his statement. I don't believe that personally.
I'd say that you probably should have made that clarification up front. The intent is not so clear. Just sayin'
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
That's exactly what I'm going to say.

Here's what I found on the topic...

Concerning how Judas died, here is a simple reconciliation of the facts: Judas hanged himself in the potter’s field (Matthew 27:5), and that is how he died. Then, after his body had begun to decay and bloat, the rope broke, or the branch of the tree he was using broke, and his body fell, bursting open on the land of the potter’s field (Acts 1:18–19). Note that Luke does not say that Judas died from the fall, only that his body fell. The Acts passage presumes Judas’s hanging, as a man falling down in a field does not normally result in his body bursting open. Only decomposition and a fall from a height could cause a body to burst open. So Matthew mentions the actual cause of death, and Luke focuses more on the horror surrounding it.

Prior to posting your nonsense....you should do your homework first.

I trust you syand corrected.
If a man is hung by the neck, he can't fall headlong.

Even so, this "reconciliation" of different events is speculation on your part. You can't know the differing accounts are just telling parts of the same story. The simplest explanation is that the story had changed upon reaching the two authors.
 
Top