Love vs Tyranny

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Rejecting the claims of any source based on the argument that the source has a bias is a fallacy. It's called a "circumstantial ad hominem" fallacy. Im pretty certain I've pointed this out before.

And, you have depended on the exact same argument when someone presents scholarship of something you disagree with. You claim the source is bias, therefore, you reject it.

Show me where I did that.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Do you ever make posts that aren't rhetoric?

You mean utilizing an art or science of using works effectively in writing; (some skill required in this) as an eloquence, a showiness and elaborate deliberate usage of language and literary style? emphasising a point no answer really being expected?
NEVER!!!!

reply to post by NOTurTypical


If you haven't used bias as an excuse, you have used the excuse that the source doesn't know what they're talking about. That's an ad hominem as well.

You have rolled a 12 it will nourish your soul.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Why would you think the New Testament is telling you a falsehood; in not explaining the 40 days between Jesus's resurrection and ascendition or those count them, the 20 odd years he was on a road trip (Chicago, Detroit, Detroit, Chicago over and over again).

Was he opening for Motörhead on that tour?

Yes, he had 3 opening bands actually; offering up free loaves of bread and fish; Black Flag, The Effigies, and Naked Raygun. Sad but true. It was in a midtown Chicago Mission "Jesus Saves" proclaimed on the Neon Sign out front.

reply to post by adjensen


If Jesus violated the Sabbath, wouldn't that mean he had sinned? I thought he was sinless? If he refuted the Sabbath then he refuted himself, because he supposedly wrote the 10 commandments, one of which states to honor the Sabbath.

Didn't Jesus say something about a house divided against itself cannot stand? So why was he dividing himself? Also, if he refuted the Sabbath, then why did he say he was here to fulfill the law?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Why would you think the New Testament is telling you a falsehood; in not explaining the 40 days between Jesus's resurrection and ascendition or those count them, the 20 odd years he was on a road trip (Chicago, Detroit, Detroit, Chicago over and over again).

Was he opening for Motörhead on that tour?

Wasn't it Limp Bizkit?

A decade later, the really angry hardcore attitude was early 80s or so when Jesus was just finding his new voice.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

If Jesus violated the Sabbath, wouldn't that mean he had sinned?

Of course not.

Jesus didn't "violate the Sabbath," he refuted the archaic Judaic Law that had risen around it.

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:23-28 NIV)

If you were aware of that passage, and you would be if you took a couple of days to sit down and read the New Testament, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself with not knowing the answer to such a simple question.

reply to post by adjensen


You mean the archaic Judaic Law that he created? Why would he refute his own law? Didn't he say he came to fulfill the law?

If god forbade the Israelites from doing the same thing in the OT, and he breaks that law, how is he fulfilling his law?

reply to post by adjensen

Well, then present it. Actual historical evidence, not unsubstantiated claims and supposition. One cannot be ignorant of evidence that doesn't exist. I have given you a number of clear examples that demonstrate it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for Christ to be an Essene, and all you've done in return is stomp your foot and criticize me for saying that it isn't so.

There is no "actual" historical evidence that Jesus even existed! The only evidence that exists of Jesus and John the Baptist having been influenced or part of the Essene sect is in the Bible!

I've already told that I'm not going to discuss this any further with you in this thread, out of respect to the OP, because it's no longer on topic, as I've already made my point.

The topic, to remind you, is Tyranny Vs Love.

We've already had this go around, and I have presented tons of evidence. Go have another look at our discussion in this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...

And, you might address this. HERE
But not in this thread.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

You mean the archaic Judaic Law that he created?

Show me the chapter and verse that says God created a law that says you can't reap grain on the Sabbath.

reply to post by adjensen


Jesus, as "The Righteous Teacher, was dispensing the correct and uncorrupted Torah. It was withing his authority to correct the mistaken interpretation, even of the Essenes, as the "Master Teacher" that they believed him to be.

If the Essenes were incorrect in their interpretation of the Law, Jesus would have corrected them too.

Originally posted by windword
The only evidence that exists of Jesus and John the Baptist having been influenced or part of the Essene sect is in the Bible!

I thought that you just said that there is no mention of the Essenes in the Bible, because it had all been expunged by the evil Catholics? (Who, you apparently missed, were quite open about the Essenes existence and beliefs in their encyclopedia, published 40 years before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.) I've shown evidence that Jesus was not an Essene that is in the Bible, I've seen nothing conclusive from the contrary point of view.

As for "going off-topic", I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't bring up the Essenes in this thread... goes to check... nope, first instance of the word in this thread isn't by me. Complaining about topic drift is usually more effective if one isn't the person who took things off-topic in the first place.

Originally posted by windword
If the Essenes were incorrect in their interpretation of the Law, Jesus would have corrected them too.

Where is there any evidence that Jesus interacted with the Essenes? We see Pharisees, with Sadducees, Samaritans, and a Zealot (maybe) in a supporting role, but no Essenes.

First Century Palestine was not 21st Century America -- even short distances were big deals, so it is entirely possible that Jesus never had any contact with the inhabitants of Qumran.

reply to post by adjensen


The Essenes weren't isolated to Qumran!

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Do you ever make posts that aren't rhetoric?

You mean utilizing an art or science of using works effectively in writing; (some skill required in this) as an eloquence, a showiness and elaborate deliberate usage of language and literary style? emphasising a point no answer really being expected?
NEVER!!!!

"Empty speech" would he the layman's term. Devoid of any real value.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

If you haven't used bias as an excuse, you have used the excuse that the source doesn't know what they're talking about. That's an ad hominem as well.

Not true. That is arguing against what a person said, not against the person themselves.

reply to post by adjensen

Exodus 16
21 Each morning everyone gathered as much as they needed, and when the sun grew hot, it melted away. 22 On the sixth day, they gathered twice as much—two omers for each person—and the leaders of the community came and reported this to Moses. 23 He said to them, “This is what the Lord commanded: ‘Tomorrow is to be a day of sabbath rest, a holy sabbath to the Lord. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.’”

24 So they saved it until morning, as Moses commanded, and it did not stink or get maggots in it. 25 “Eat it today,” Moses said, “because today is a sabbath to the Lord. You will not find any of it on the ground today. 26 Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any.”

27 Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none. 28 Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you[c] refuse to keep my commands and my instructions? 29 Bear in mind that the Lord has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where they are on the seventh day; no one is to go out.” 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

Good enough? I'm assuming no.

reply to post by windword

There is no "actual" historical evidence that Jesus even existed!

That's wholly untrue. The gospels are historical documents. His enemies mention that He existed, and non-Christian historical figures of His time affirm it as well. That's multiple source attestation including hostile-source.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


How can you argue what they wrote if you never read it?