Spirituality
11 Dec 08
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzito the best of my ability i have stated the evidence, based on the testimony of others whom i take it upon trust know more than i do, if you can discredit the testimony then so be it, i leave it up to the forum to decide.
what christ stated is different from this case. firstly, him being the son of god adds some credibility to his words. secondly, he conveyed moral guidelines most of the time he was here and those are not really necessary to prove. love each other is a no brainer.
you however are not christ and if you want to be taken seriously you must demonstrate your ...[text shortened]... tacking your debating methods and yourself and start debating your claims. as debates should go.
however this is very rarely the case, consider the number of posts that have been posted and compare that with the assertions that have been made, it is astonishingly disproportionate. for example that the teachings of Christ were subject to embellishment, not one, i hasten, not one teaching of Christ that is found in the bible has yet been raised and a thorough analysis been given as to why it has been subject to corruption, not one! take another, that the biblical book of Luke was not written by Luke, where is the evidence, where is the testimony, where is the scriptural references which show that it was written by someone else, there is not even one measly little reference, not one. if you are going to subject my testimony to the rigors of falsification, then why not the others?
you are correct i am not the Christ, this however does not negate the same principle, that what we teach is not ours. we did not originate any biblical references, we were not inspired to record any scripture, these teachings are not ours, nothing. we are nothing more than custodians of an ancient record and reserve the right to defend it the best way we see fit, is it not so?
and you know how i feel with regard to gaining respect from others, we need to go there again.
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleah beetle, all is warring with words, alas alas! is there no end of it! i grow weary and would sue for peace given any quarter, but with these guys non is given and none is taken, however i find comfort in the ancient proverb, it is better to suffer the winters wind my friend, than the tigers breath!
Jura 's a happy toddler
Glenkinchie 10 a standard blink of the eye
Talisker a yellow eye-catcher diamond
Glenlivet 15 drives you higher the most you keep warm its dark amber soul
Cardu 12 will soon become a rare pleasure
Oban how perfect for the everyday practice and reflection over the board
Macallan 18 is fine whenever I have to wash down my joyful bitterness after a game against Mathurine
No religion
Nothing Holy😵
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you understand what "plagiarism" is?
if you dispute the references then that is up to you, they were good enough for my purposes, and like lemon yellow it took me a considerable amount of time and effort for me to source and post these statements from a variety of sources, that's what i call research, so if you don't mind i also demand of you a full public apology for having slandered m ...[text shortened]... nts are also baseless assertions but we need to grasp at something, regards no 1 muppethead'.
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderyes claiming something is your own, a claim that i have never made, or perhaps you can point out where i have made that claim, otherwise i may ask for another public apology and at this rate you'll be practically doing obeisance for your statements
Do you understand what "plagiarism" is?
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThank you for the link, Robbie, it explains more than I knew from before. So this make it a well founded guess that Josephus was of David lineage.
dude if you want to know do your own research, im doing no more for anybody else. whether its a hot potato or not i do not know, i am no part of mainstream Christianity. the extra biblical sources simply indicate that Christ was a descendant of David, that all.
my apologies Fabian, you have asked in earnest, i should not have reacted they way i ...[text shortened]... e to verify otherwise.
http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/prophecy/lineage/fulfill.html
But still - Jesus wasn't of Davids lineage, because Josephus wasn't the father of Jesus. The genealogy breaks there. So I'm still in doubt that Jesus was the Messias the prophecies told about.
No apologies needed, robbie my friend. You answer my questions better than others. And I am serious with my questions, because I would really know. I'm not here to collect ammunition to use in my discussions with others. And this is so important question, weather Jesus is the Messiah or not.
Now, my question about the fatherhood of Josephus is still unclear for me.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe actual definition is:
yes claiming something is your own, a claim that i have never made, or perhaps you can point out where i have made that claim.
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
That is what you did, using exactly the words of a Watchtower Society publication and claiming it was your "original research". Then you had the utter gall to demand an apology!!! Are you insane besides being a pathetic fraud?
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasFabian some time is needed to research this fully. i myself was actually surprised to find that there was a discrepancy, therefore it will need some time for me to reconcile this. i think it may have something to do with not only the physical aspect of descent from David but also the legality, but i need to check it out. at present i am kept busy with attacks on my person, once they subside we can get into the real details of this - kind regards Robbie.
Thank you for the link, Robbie, it explains more than I knew from before. So this make it a well founded guess that Josephus was of David lineage.
But still - Jesus wasn't of Davids lineage, because Josephus wasn't the father of Jesus. The genealogy breaks there. So I'm still in doubt that Jesus was the Messias the prophecies told about.
No apologie ...[text shortened]... essiah or not.
Now, my question about the fatherhood of Josephus is still unclear for me.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderi never claimed in the slightest that it was my words, nor have i ever done so. i have consistently stated that my research consists of finding and sourcing texts and references with which to substantiate my claims. perhaps you can state where i said that these were my own thoughts or my own words, and once you cannot, perhaps your apology will be forthcoming.
The actual definition is:
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
That is what you did, using exactly the words of a Watchtower Society publication and claiming it was your "original research". Then you had the utter gall to demand an apology!!! Are you insane besides being a pathetic fraud?
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo the research if you want for your own interest, not for mine.
Fabian some time is needed to research this fully. i myself was actually surprised to find that there was a discrepancy, therefore it will need some time for me to reconcile this. i think it may have something to do with not only the physical aspect of descent from David but also the legality, but i need to check it out. at present i am kept busy ...[text shortened]... on my person, once they subside we can get into the real details of this - kind regards Robbie.
I'm happy with your input so far anyway, and I thank you for that.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you directly lift passages from someone else's writings, you are supposed to put them in quotes and/or identity the source of the passage. When you don't, you are misrepresenting them as your own work. Even an obvious simpleton like yourself must be aware of that.
i never claimed in the slightest that it was my words, nor have i ever done so. i have consistently stated that my research consists of finding and sourcing texts and references with which to substantiate my claims. perhaps you can state where i said that these were my own thoughts or my own words, and once you cannot, perhaps your apology will be forthcoming.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou are getting confused. Josephus does not claim to be descended from David but only from the high priests of Israel. See http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm#EndNote_Auto.2b
Thank you for the link, Robbie, it explains more than I knew from before. So this make it a well founded guess that Josephus was of David lineage.
But still - Jesus wasn't of Davids lineage, because Josephus wasn't the father of Jesus. The genealogy breaks there. So I'm still in doubt that Jesus was the Messias the prophecies told about.
No apologie ...[text shortened]... essiah or not.
Now, my question about the fatherhood of Josephus is still unclear for me.
paragraph 1.
RC's pilfered claim is that because Josephus' was able to trace his lineage back to his great grandfather using the priestly records, it is perfectly logical to assume that every Jew (there were millions in the Middle East) had available to them public records tracing their genealogy back as far as Adam as Matthew and Luke traced Jesus'. This assertion is beyond fallacious and borders on lunacy.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasBut FF my friend,
Thank you for the link, Robbie, it explains more than I knew from before. So this make it a well founded guess that Josephus was of David lineage.
But still - Jesus wasn't of Davids lineage, because Josephus wasn't the father of Jesus. The genealogy breaks there. So I'm still in doubt that Jesus was the Messias the prophecies told about.
No apologie ...[text shortened]... essiah or not.
Now, my question about the fatherhood of Josephus is still unclear for me.
All that jazz seems to me not that important. A matter of importance is the Christian Eschatology -and I think that whoever thinks or talks about the end of the Humanity and of the World as we know it he is penetrated from deep hatred against the Human, either he understands it or he cannot grasp it consiously;
Another matter of importance is the tendency of this religion to put everybody in a deep well, in the well of the sin. This machinery, the so called "original sin", has spread to the human beings the impression that everybody is a sinner, that everybody deserves a severe punishment and that solely some "believers" will avoid a red hot eternal party at Geena thanks to a specific doctrine of a specific religion;
And then I am thinking that the priests are by far the best architects of guiltiness;
Fictional or real, it seems to me that Jesus would be not at all proud of whatever his delegates were, and still are, doing in his name;
😵
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziI do Big Z, and I pass you again my answer:
who here remembers what the original post was?
no cheating.
This all is introduced by far better long ago
(echo and bounce)
-- Who gave you the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?
Who needs theology under the sun?
Nothing Holy
😵