"Pastor Dave"
_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k5v5s3tbqifo8chghbbp0sm1mto5jodm93@4ax.com...> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:51:12 -0600, "Greywolf"
>
cybrzn.com> spake thusly:
>
>>>"Pastor Dave"
_gmail.com>
>>wrote in message
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:37:54 -0600, "Greywolf"
>>>
cybrzn.com> spake thusly:
>>>>>>>Mark 15:25 states the Jesus was crucified
>>>>at nine o' clock in the morning (i.e., 'the
>>>>third hour'). John's gospel has Jesus still
>>>>on trial before Pilate at around the 'sixth'
>>>>hour, that is to say around 'noon' (John
>>>>19:14). You tell me.
>>>
>>> Would you really like to know? Or is your
>>> mission to claim contradictions, so matter
>>> what you are shown?
>>
>>The texts speak for themselves.
>
> In other words, you're not interested in knowing
> and your mission is to do your best to denigrate
> the Bible, the facts be damned. But hey, you're
> honest, right? Of course you are! Refusing
> information is always the sign of intelligence
> and honesty!
You've already kill-filed me so this doesn't matter
much, but you made no attempt whatever to back
up your insinuations. Who's 'refused information'
here? I pointed out two New Testament passages
that stand in clear contradiction to one another. And
have you provided any evidence to the contrary. No.
Did anyone tell you couldn't provide your evidence? No.
It's not too late, you know. One of your colleagues could
tap you on the shoulder and tell you, 'Go ahead, prove to
the unbeliever that there's no contradiction involved. Go
ahead and stand tall for those who hold your literal belief
in the bible'. Couldn't he or she?
>
>
>>And if you are one
>>of those trying to maintain that John 19:14 refers to
>>'Thursday' instead of 'Good Friday', I suggest you go
>>read Raymond E. Brown's 'The Death of the Messiah',
>>(vol. 2) and other scholarly resources on the matter.
>
> I suggest you go get a life, instead of claiming
> that you only reading what supports your preassumed
> conclusions equates to honest research.
Touchy, touchy, aren't we? How about shutting up the
flapper and providing proof Mark 15:25 and John 19:14
do *not* stand in contradiction to each other?
>
>
>>You people stand on your heads and spin like tops trying
>>to force-fit 'evidence' that just won't fit in a desperate
>>effort to 'prove the bible true'. You only end up
>>embarrassing yourselves, you know.
>
> You're an idiot, who refused a very simple answer
> which doesn't "force fit" a thing and explains the
> facts and proves your willing ignorance.
And that answer was *what* again?
And btw,
> that means, "dumb on purpose".
You going to assert that Raymond E. Brown (now
deceased, unfortunately) is 'dumb' too? And what
about the other world-class bible scholars who
hold the same position? Are they all 'dumb' as well?
>
> For the benefit of other people, I will say that the time
> is not an issue. The Gospel of John was written to a
> Gentile audience and he used the way that they count
> the hours of the day, whereas the other texts are
> counting in the Jewish way.
And the proof of that is . . . *where* again. And if you try
maintaining that position (which is not the natural 'reading'
of the text, and is nowhere indicated in John's gospel) it
will throw off the chronolgy where John and the synoptic
gospels agree to a 'T'. Moreover, John's gospel is quite
hostile to the Jews, but hardly a 'Gentile' gospel. Try Luke
for that. And Luke is not using Roman military time either.
Go ahead. Keep grasping at straws while denying the truth.
It is people just like you, you religiously diseased 'nut', that
is helping to make my existence out here a hell on this earth.
You sick, sick, retardos!
>
> This means that you are stupid. You see, you equated
> the "hour of the day" with a "time of day" according to
> the clock that you use now, today, when the Bible
> does not say, "9 O' Clock". Nor does it say, "Noon".
Excuse me for breathin', but did I not use the chronological
terms, 'third hour' and 'sixth hour' somewhere in the above?
> You just foolishly assumed those times, based on how
> you view a clock today and then stated those times,
> as if it's a fact that the Bible says those times you idiot!
I combined both ancient and modern usage. Something
that seems to have slipped right past you.
>
> For a Jew, 9 AM would be "the third hour of the day",
> since the daylight part of the day started at 6 AM
> for them, idiot!
Here, let me make this easier: I'm going to go to the
top of this post and copy and paste the text I typed. And
*then* point out I'm being an 'idiot':
______________________________
Mark 15:25 states the Jesus was crucified
>>>>at nine o' clock in the morning (i.e., 'the
>>>>third hour'). John's gospel has Jesus still
>>>>on trial before Pilate at around the 'sixth'
>>>>hour, that is to say around 'noon' (John
>>>>19:14). You tell me.
______________________________
And that is what Mark said. Now that
> does happen to work out to 9 AM, but my point is,
> that you cannot assume that in John, because John
> used the Gentile means of counting the day and so
> "the sixth hour" (John does not say, "9AM") would
> not have been "Noon", because he did not use the
> Jewish method of counting, since he wrote to a
> Gentile audience. He used THEIR method, so that
> when THEY read it, would make sense TO THEM.
> You know, THE READERS?!
So let me see if I got this right: John used 'Gentile'
chronology without informing the *Jewish* readers
of his gospels he was using 'Gentile' chronology
although John was as Jewish as they come himself.
That means Jesus was crucified at *six* a.m. (Roman
military time) instead of nine a.m.!
Do you really want to go with that?
>
> Now why don't you go figure out how they would have
> counted the time during the daylight portion of the day.
> Gee, maybe it's like we do and that makes "the sixth hour"
> occur at 6 AM, dufus!
You're are using *Jewish* chronolgy here! The start of a new
day using Roman military time, or what you label 'Gentile'
time here, would procede from the *midnight* hour. Thus,
John's alleged use of Roman military time would place the
time of Jesus' crucifixion at *six* o' clock in the morning (i.e.,
the 'sixth hour'. Now whose the *dufus*, dufus-face?
>
> Now do you think it's coincidence that when John is
> viewed as what he wrote it as, a Gospel for the Gentiles,
You mean to say to say that John, a Jew and purportedly a
member of Jesus' inner circle who had been told by his
Master that he was sent' ONLY unto the lost sheep of the
house of Israel would use, as you have just learned, 'faulty
'Gentile' chronology to readers of whom most initial readers
would be Jewish? And without explanation or advance notice?
Go on. Keep grasping at straws. You mindless robots only show
to what head-shaking degree you all have prostituted your
intellect and integrity. C'mon. Call a spade a spade. Mark 15:25
and John 19:14 stand in blatant contradiction to each other.
Why can't you all be honest about it and move on?
> that it's just coincidence that the times match up
> perfectly with the way that they count the day and then
> lines up perfectly with the other Gospels?! Of course
> you do!
If the synoptic gospel writers are using a time-keeping method
that is at great odds with the time-keeping method you insist
John is adhering to, they *can't* be in perfect synchonization
with one another *due* to the fact that two entirely different
and unsynchronious methods of keeping time are being employed.
Dang! You are one brainwashed brainwashing Christian zealot,
aren't you?
Because you need to, to avoid admitting that
> Jesus is Lord and that you are a sinner in need of
> redemption! And that is why you hate Christianity
> so much and that's why you don't rail against other
> religions, even Judaism, even though it uses the same
> Scriptures that we have in the Old Testament!!
The members of the Jewish faith here in America are not trying to
turn this country into a theocracy. And on another level, *I* not at
all opposed to religious 'faith' so long as the 'faithful' don't treat me
like a Jew in Hitler's pre-war Germany, or fodder for the Inquisiton
or Salem Witch Trials. It is *your* type of Christians that are treating
me so inhumanely and with a level of cruelty that is simply *staggering*,
not the Hindus, Buddhists, or good-hearted, noble-minded Christians.
Only BAD people, EVIL people do the sort of thing that's being done to
me. BAD, and I mean REALLY BAD people. 'Christians', many of whom
think just like *you* do in regards to 'Scripture'. Phooey!! on
your foul, filthy, brand of Christianity, you hateful people, you!
It is
> because when it comes to dealing with Jesus, that
> if it's true, then that means that you are forced to admit
> that you're a sinner in need of redemption and you refuse
> to confess that simple fact! And therefore, you will say
> and do whatever it takes, no matter how foolish, to avoid
> confessing that truth to yourself! Jesus forces you to
> make a real choice and you hate Him for that! May God
> have mercy on you!
>
Let me break this to you as gently as I can: The Jesus of the gospels
is as bogus a 'real' character as one can discover in ancient literature.
But if one can believe in virgin births, apostles walking on water and
endowed by Jesus to 'raise the dead', yet think the women reporting
that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead, 'nuts', be my guest. You're
only fooling yourself with that patent nonsense. And remember: No one
is taking away your right to believe what you so passionately believe, it's
your insistence that others believe the same while completely disrespecting
the very beliefs (or unbelief) *they* hold equally dear, you imposing
Christian bullies, you. Take a hike. Take it down the street. And remember
where you stuck your nose, you nut. This is NOT the alt.religion newsgroup.
It's alt.ATHEISM!
> I have dealt with you on more than one occasion in
> the past and each time, you ignore anything that
> doesn't suit your desire to ridicule the Bible and even
> after repeatedly being proved wrong,
Hahhhhhhh!!!! When did you *EVER* 'prove' me 'wrong'. Name just *one*
instance!! My, isn't *somebody* high on his Pastor self today?!
you run away
> and then bring up the same disproved accusations
> in another thread, in another group, or whatever!
Go ahead. Check how many times I've gone out of my way to invade other
newsgroups. Not preventing me being crossposted on *occasion*, that's one
thing. But going out on my own to enter a newsgroup to spread my atheism
around is exceedingly rare. Go ahead. Do some reseach. See how many
instances you find where I've entered a newsgroup and assaulted the
Christians within.
Oh, but I forget, you've kill-filed me already.
>
> You're a lying idiot! And just so you know, ONCE AGAIN,
> don't bother quoting Mat 5:22 to me! That speaks of
> BROTHERS. You are NOT my brother! What applies
> to you, is Psalm 14:1, son!
>
> Now goodbye! Into my kill file you go, once again!
>
> --
>
Was it something I said? (Gonna let this one cross-post. I'm not the one
that initiated it and the rest of the newsgroups involved should be allowed
to see my final response to the dude.)
Greywolf
