Republican Commentary on Rising Gas Prices... - Page 8

foundit66 · 06-02-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Okay, okay. I'll give you the reason it must have been uttered twice. Matthew and Mark have Jesus saying it on their way to the garden to pray after leaving the upper room. John and Like have the account of Jesus saying it IN the upper room. Therefore it must have been mentioned twice. That makes you stupid now doesn't it.

Keep your last comment in mind for a second...

Add that on with the fact that you JUST ADMITTED that Matthew and Mark are talking about the SAME situations. SAME locations...

And then go back and realize that the contradiction I pointed out WAS BETWEEN the accounts of Matthew and Mark...

Quote:

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34

Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30

You just debunked your own explanation.
Thanks!

foundit66 · 06-02-2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

He says he is Lord of the Sabbath Day. He never said he was exempt. Verse 6 he said he was greater than the temple where the law is kept. In verse 8 he says he is Lord of the Sabbath. Do you know what it means to "Lord over something"?

Considering you and I are probably going to have significantly different interpretations on that, why don't you tell me what you think it means instead of asking a rhetorical question.

I know what it means to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

He was saying he was greater than the law. He can do what he damn well pleases.

Ergo, EXEMPT from the law.
Ergo, he DID NOT FULFILL the law.

He either fulfilled the law that was applicable at the time, or he didn't.
Which is it?

alias · 06-02-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Keep your last comment in mind for a second...

Add that on with the fact that you JUST ADMITTED that Matthew and Mark are talking about the SAME situations. SAME locations...

And then go back and realize that the contradiction I pointed out WAS BETWEEN the accounts of Matthew and Mark...

You just debunked your own explanation.
Thanks!

Not quite there sonny boy. Matthew and Mark are 2 entirely different people and are entitled to word it the way they see fit. Both are correct. If Peter denies Jesus before the cock crows, then he automatically denied Jesus before the cock crowed twice. It's kinda like the explanation I gave you about my wife and her friend going shopping. My wife says they went to the grocery store, but then her friend adds that they also stopped at Penny's for shoes. They are both correct. No contradiction. If Peter denied Jesus before the cock crowed, then he automatically denied Jesus before the cock crowed twice. Next.

alias · 06-02-2006, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Considering you and I are probably going to have significantly different interpretations on that, why don't you tell me what you think it means instead of asking a rhetorical question.

I know what it means to me.

Ergo, EXEMPT from the law.
Ergo, he DID NOT FULFILL the law.

He either fulfilled the law that was applicable at the time, or he didn't.
Which is it?

It means to me that Jesus is saying he is greater than the Law. What do you think he is saying?

The word exempt is not in there. You are trying to change the meaning. He did fulfill the Law. He is the Law. He is everything. He is God, He is the Son of God, He is the High Priest, He is the Prophet, He is the King of Kings, He is the Life. He is the Almighty. Every thing in the old testament is a picture of Jesus Christ to come. When he showed up, the Law was fulfilled.

foundit66 · 06-02-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Not quite there sonny boy. Matthew and Mark are 2 entirely different people and are entitled to word it the way they see fit. Both are correct.

Which brings me back to a previous statement I made which you never addressed.

If we're going to go the "two different people" route, then we're admitting that the PEOPLE WHO WROTE the bible are coloring their recorded word according to THEIR perception.
No longer a "word of god" thing, but rather a "word of god, as described by the way these men saw things". A rather significant change...

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

If Peter denies Jesus before the cock crows, then he automatically denied Jesus before the cock crowed twice.

So NOW you're changing your story, aren't you...
Originally, you were touting the "two different statements in two different places at two different times" apologetic approach.

But now, since you have debunked your own claim, you're switching tactics...

Tell me. Why would the "word of god" say "twice" in one place, and just "cock crows" in another?

And for the bonus round, are you ready to get into how THESE STATEMENTS here coincide with how things ACTUALLY PLAYED OUT in later chapters???

Be careful what you say here, because you're already setting yourself up to need to change your story a third time...

alias · 06-02-2006, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Which brings me back to a previous statement I made which you never addressed.

If we're going to go the "two different people" route, then we're admitting that the PEOPLE WHO WROTE the bible are coloring their recorded word according to THEIR perception.
No longer a "word of god" thing, but rather a "word of god, as described by the way these men saw things". A rather significant change...

So NOW you're changing your story, aren't you...
Originally, you were touting the "two different statements in two different places at two different times" apologetic approach.

But now, since you have debunked your own claim, you're switching tactics...

Tell me. Why would the "word of god" say "twice" in one place, and just "cock crows" in another?

And for the bonus round, are you ready to get into how THESE STATEMENTS here coincide with how things ACTUALLY PLAYED OUT in later chapters???

Be careful what you say here, because you're already setting yourself up to need to change your story a third time...

The bible says the people who wrote the word of God were "inspired". That does not mean they were puppets or in a trance. The bible says the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible through people. They still had their emotions and all their faculties, they were being inspired by the Holy Spirit. I can play the same song as another guy on my bass, but it will be a little different bass part because we have both been inspired differently. Saying Peter denied Jesus before the cock crows is not different than saying Peter denied Jesus before the cock crowed 10 or 12 times. He denied him before the cock crowed and that is that. No matter how many times you say the cock crows, it has no bearing on the fact that Peter denied Jesus before it crowed even once. Peter denied him 3 times is all we know.

foundit66 · 06-02-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

It means to me that Jesus is saying he is greater than the Law. What do you think he is saying?

He IS talking about his greatness, but he never claims he is "greater than the law" in those verses.
That is your interpretation, and an irrelevant one at that.

Because you see, the point is not whether or not Jesus is "above the law".
The point is that the bible claims that Jesus KEPT THE LAW PERFECTLY. NEVER breaking it.

If he broke it, then that is false.

Suppose we have a diplomat who kills somebody. Having diplomatic immunity, he is "above the law". But he still BROKE the law, and thus we can't claim the diplomat kept the law perfectly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

The word exempt is not in there. You are trying to change the meaning.

You're quibbling over irrelevant semantics.
Are you claiming that he was "above the law", but not exempt from it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

He did fulfill the Law. He is the Law. He is everything. He is God, He is the Son of God, He is the High Priest, He is the Prophet, He is the King of Kings, He is the Life. He is the Almighty. Every thing in the old testament is a picture of Jesus Christ to come. When he showed up, the Law was fulfilled.

WoW!
That is SUCH a radical difference from the usual Christian diatribe I am accustomed to.

Typically, when the bible talks about Jesus fulfilling the law, they are interpreted as saying that Jesus will keep the law PERFECTLY.
But instead, YOU are interpreting it as that all he had to do was JUST SHOW UP? That's it?
That's all he had to do?

Do you even realize how radically you have shifted away from typical interpretation of these prophesies?

alias · 06-02-2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

He IS talking about his greatness, but he never claims he is "greater than the law" in those verses.
That is your interpretation, and an irrelevant one at that.

Because you see, the point is not whether or not Jesus is "above the law".
The point is that the bible claims that Jesus KEPT THE LAW PERFECTLY. NEVER breaking it.

If he broke it, then that is false.

Suppose we have a diplomat who kills somebody. Having diplomatic immunity, he is "above the law". But he still BROKE the law, and thus we can't claim the diplomat kept the law perfectly.

You're quibbling over irrelevant semantics.
Are you claiming that he was "above the law", but not exempt from it?

WoW!
That is SUCH a radical difference from the usual Christian diatribe I am accustomed to.

Typically, when the bible talks about Jesus fulfilling the law, they are interpreted as saying that Jesus will keep the law PERFECTLY.
But instead, YOU are interpreting it as that all he had to do was JUST SHOW UP? That's it?
That's all he had to do?

Do you even realize how radically you have shifted away from typical interpretation of these prophesies?

You are getting to lengthy in your replies and I will only reply to your first point. So if you want to waste your time, go ahead.

It is not an irrelevant point. He is talking about his greatness, I agree with you. He is saying he is greater. Read that verse again. He says he is greater than the temple and what's in the temple? I guess that is radical, but all I am doing is reading what it says.

foundit66 · 06-02-2006, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

You are getting to lengthy in your replies and I will only reply to your first point. So if you want to waste your time, go ahead.

Translation: I'm going to make a convenient excuse to ignore your arguments, abandon my defense of bible contradictions, and pretend it's all your fault...

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

It is not an irrelevant point. He is talking about his greatness, I agree with you. He is saying he is greater. Read that verse again. He says he is greater than the temple and what's in the temple? I guess that is radical, but all I am doing is reading what it says.

You're ignoring most of what I said, which included WHY I said it was irrelevant.
Yes. He is talking about his greatness. But his greatness IS NOT THE POINT of the contradiction.

The contradiction is in the fact that the bible claims that Jesus will KEEP THE LAW PERFECTLY. And this passage clearly demonstrates Jesus BREAKING the law. NOT keeping it perfectly.
You can argue that the Mosaic law doesn't apply to him, but that would be AVOIDING the point made. If a king breaks the law by killing somebody, but nobody prosecutes him because he is above the law, he has STILL BROKEN the law.
People WOULD NOT be able to say that king kept the law perfectly.

THAT is why "greatness" is irrelevant. It's irrelevant to the argument of the contradiction.
It may be entirely relevant to other things, but it's entirely irrelevant to this point...

foundit66 · 06-02-2006, 05:27 PM

And as a side comment Alias, please refrain from doing the "Socratic method" thing of asking guided questions to try and get me to arrive at your conclusion.

You and I differ so much on these things that it's only going to get in the way. For most questions, I'm just going to give an answer that IS NOT going to be yours at all, and therefore it's just a waste of time and will add confusion.

If you've got an argument to make, then just make it. If you've got a perspective to show, then just show it. Trying to ask questions where I have to guess what the answer you are thinking of and the point you are trying to get at from the question is just going to be frustrating for both.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode