Jesus must have at least written in the snow.

(December 15, 2016 at 8:33 am)Drich Wrote: akouō in this context means to consider or understand what is being said.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...G191&t=KJV

In every way that the word is defined in your link, "to understand" is the least common usage of it, well behind the many ways in which it means "to hear."  Which is why the passage says that they left when they heard what Jesus said, not when they read what he wrote or comprehended what he wrote.  There is nothing that would imply that they read his scribblings and were moved by them.

Quote:So it can indeed be said what Christ wrote in the dirt, silenced the pharisees.

Only if you use the least-likely and least-sensible interpretation.

Quote:If again that what He wanted Or if again that is not what He had done.

You were talking about the issues Jesus would have in writing a book himself-- lack of time, lack of materials, lack of authority.  I pointed out that none of these would have stopped him from doing just that.

Quote:Again I was simply educating you all who do not seem to understand what it would take to preserve anything from then till now.

And I'm pointing out that if we're talking about God, preserving writings would be trivial for him.

Quote:You are right in that God could have persevered anything He wished. The question is what if He did not wish it?

No, that wasn't the question.  The question was if it was beyond his capability to do it.  But since you're asking, the answer to your question is that if God did not wish to preserve the most important writings in history, then you end up with a situation that looks suspiciously the same as it would if there was no god.

Quote:So then if even you say it is possible for God to do this, lets look at how the last time he did this turned out. Meaning the last time He wrote down the laws defining a religion.. That would be with moses, now fast forward about 2000 years to Christ. According to Christ how did the holiest of the holy practitioners do? Did Jesus give them a 'well done my good and faithful servants' or did he blast them every chance He got???

You do understand that his failures make him seem less like a God, right?

Quote:Now ask yourself Why would God set up another religion the same way He did the last one, just for it to fail on the highest levels?

Because he's not God.

Quote:Especially when there is another way a far better way Where God no longer need Priests or prophets to speak to us?

Such as showing up?  Also, wouldn't God have figured out the best way of doing things the first time around?  He seems to fail a lot for someone who is perfect and all-knowing.

Quote:It would if we never heard of him as with the 100s if not 1000s of other messiahs who came and went before durning and since that time.

Why?  If there was only a need to select one, then that's what happened.  And since we're talking about books written decades after he died, it's very likely that we have not really "heard of him."  We know only the myth that was constructed around a man who may have lived in the middle east at one time.  There's no reason it could not be a composite, either.

Quote:So it can indeed be said what Christ wrote in the dirt, silenced the pharisees.

Dripshit, you redefine stupidity on a daily basis.

(December 15, 2016 at 10:04 am)Tonus Wrote:

(December 15, 2016 at 8:33 am)Drich Wrote: akouō in this context means to consider or understand what is being said.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...G191&t=KJV

In every way that the word is defined in your link, "to understand" is the least common usage of it, well behind the many ways in which it means "to hear."

I am not disputing that they hear what Jesus said. What I am point out is the context and order that the left. They all left some time AFTER they hear what Jesus said but while he continued to write. Which follows the defination I provided: "to understand, perceive the sense of what is said"

Quote: Which is why the passage says that they left when they heard what Jesus said, not when they read what he wrote or comprehended what he wrote.  There is nothing that would imply that they read his scribblings and were moved by them.

If you believe this then explain the order that they left if his writtings did not play ANY role in the events? Why didn't they leave all at once? why didn't any of them throw a stone, as they did believe that they were indeed sinless.

It's because Whatever Jesus wrote showed them not to be sinless. something the older understood quickly while the younger took a little longer to catch on..

Quote:So it can indeed be said what Christ wrote in the dirt, silenced the pharisees.

Quote:Only if you use the least-likely and least-sensible interpretation.

3rd time i asked you provide an alternative explanation the allows for the elements in the story to be used.

If it were just Christ's words again why did they wait so long to leave if they thought themselves to be without spot or blemish/sinless?

Quote:You were talking about the issues Jesus would have in writing a book himself-- lack of time, lack of materials, lack of authority.  I pointed out that none of these would have stopped him from doing just that.

Rightfully so..
I floated that idea out there so you would acknowledge God being a viable reason or support structure for him to write or not write.. So then I pointed to the failures of God written word, and I pointed to how things worked out this time. (Why? because when I goto the straight answer you all default, but I'm an atheist I don't believe in God.. So when you envoke the power of God for a possible solution, then the 'god-smod' or grand thinker arguement is going to be a little harder for you to use.)

Quote:Again I was simply educating you all who do not seem to understand what it would take to preserve anything from then till now.

Quote:And I'm pointing out that if we're talking about God, preserving writings would be trivial for him.

And I'm pointing out that he has already done what you are suggesting he do with the OT, and it did not work out so well. Do try and keep up old sport.

Quote:You are right in that God could have persevered anything He wished. The question is what if He did not wish it?

Quote:No, that wasn't the question.

 Actually you are right, that was not the question. the original question I was answering was could Jesus READ And Write. I answered it with John 8 where it is recorded Jesus was writing.

Then I went on to point out (to get you to the next phase of Christ's divinity/Jesus was not just a man) All of the support structure needed for a writing to be maintain for over 2000 years. Congrats you hurrldeled that one too, but it seems you want to just keep going back and clearing it again. I'm asking you to move on with the discussion. I'm now asking why wouldn't Jesus want to write down what he wanted... Hmmm Let's look at what happened when God took his finger and spelled out what he wanted. for over 1000 years the jews worship those writings as if they were God Himself. then after God stripped those stone fragments away they took the law and added to it perverting it till it became a burden not reflecting anything resembling what He wanted. Till Jesus walks in and points all of that out.

Can you see a bigger picture forming yet?

Quote:The question was if it was beyond his capability to do it.  But since you're asking, the answer to your question is that if God did not wish to preserve the most important writings in history, then you end up with a situation that looks suspiciously the same as it would if there was no god.

Or one smart enough to know that stupid 1/2 breed monkey decedents tend to make idols out of the scraps God uses to simply communicate, So he clears the planet of them.

Quote:So then if even you say it is possible for God to do this, lets look at how the last time he did this turned out. Meaning the last time He wrote down the laws defining a religion.. That would be with moses, now fast forward about 2000 years to Christ. According to Christ how did the holiest of the holy practitioners do? Did Jesus give them a 'well done my good and faithful servants' or did he blast them every chance He got???

Quote:You do understand that his failures make him seem less like a God, right?

What a "fool considers to be failure" is wisdom for those who seek it. ~Drich

God did not fail 'smart guy.' We did. This life is not about Him learning to deal with us. It is about use learning who and what type of people we are. It's not just about how you handle your life, but about how all of those who came before you reacted in similar circumstances. It is about learn of our mistakes so they do not echo through eternity.

Quote:Now ask yourself Why would God set up another religion the same way He did the last one, just for it to fail on the highest levels?

Quote:Because he's not God.

Or if you weren't scared to work that little mind of your just a little harder, just a little past your typical shut down/close down point you'd see, that "He's not God, would have been the CORRECT answer if He allowed 2000 years of a Christ written gospel to corrupt the new covenant as the last handwritten document from God did with Judaism.

Again how could he spend so much time railing against the leadership of the Jews if He Himself set fourth the circumstances that made the Jewish leadership who they were...

No If Christianity were a man inspired/fueled religion you would see the same failures the Jews made with God over and over again. starting with how God's word was issued.

Quote:Especially when there is another way a far better way Where God no longer need Priests or prophets to speak to us?

Quote:Such as showing up?  Also, wouldn't God have figured out the best way of doing things the first time around?  He seems to fail a lot for someone who is perfect and all-knowing.

In some cases yes. Showing up does work.. However when idk people like you for instance expects to see an old man on a throne, how would you/they ever know if you weren't speaking to God if HE didn't show up the way you envisioned Him?

Let say for a moment God decided to simply create an account on AF.org and directly answer a few of your posts... how in the ff's would you know you were talking to God if you idea of Him was all screwed up in your little head, that says God can only be ABC?

That what the Pharisees did btw.. They said God could only ever be ABC, so when Jesus showed up XYZ they could not admit their idea of what God is/How He is was all wrong.

How are you any different than any of them??

Quote:Why?  If there was only a need to select one, then that's what happened.  And since we're talking about books written decades after he died, it's very likely that we have not really "heard of him."  We know only the myth that was constructed around a man who may have lived in the middle east at one time.  There's no reason it could not be a composite, either.

what are you talking about? The Book of luke was compiled very short order.

(December 15, 2016 at 3:02 pm)Drich Wrote: 3rd time i asked you provide an alternative explanation the allows for the elements in the story to be used.

The story says that after he spoke to them and returned to writing on the ground, they began to leave.  It offers no timetable other than that, so why would we assume that they waited long?  And why would that be the criteria by which we interpret the story?  They heard what Jesus said.  The story gives no indication as to what he was writing, but it tells us what he said.  There is no good reason to interpret it any other way.

So, again-- why would you choose the least likely explanation when the more likely one is also the more sensible one?

Quote:I floated that idea out there so you would acknowledge God being a viable reason or support structure for him to write or not write.

That doesn't make sense.  YOU acknowledge God as being a viable reason for anything, so your claims would presumably take that into account.  I am pointing out that your excuses give us a scenario that works just fine without God.

Quote:And I'm pointing out that he has already done what you are suggesting he do with the OT, and it did not work out so well. Do try and keep up old sport.

And I pointed out that this doesn't look good on his resume.

Quote:Actually you are right, that was not the question. the original question I was answering was could Jesus READ And Write. I answered it with John 8 where it is recorded Jesus was writing.

I wasn't referring to the original question.

Quote:I'm now asking why wouldn't Jesus want to write down what he wanted... Hmmm Let's look at what happened when God took his finger and spelled out what he wanted. for over 1000 years the jews worship those writings as if they were God Himself. then after God stripped those stone fragments away they took the law and added to it perverting it till it became a burden not reflecting anything resembling what He wanted. Till Jesus walks in and points all of that out.

So Jesus failed and wanted to avoid another failure.  I already pointed that out.

Quote:Or one smart enough to know that stupid 1/2 breed monkey decedents tend to make idols out of the scraps God uses to simply communicate, So he clears the planet of them.

He tends to have clumsy solutions to problems of his own making, I have noticed.

Quote:God did not fail 'smart guy.' We did.

That doesn't make sense.  God is unable to create plans that will account for a condition that he bestowed upon humanity.  He is forced to deal with a situation of his own making and can't figure out a way around it that would convince everyone that he exists and how to get to know him.  It's a situation that suspiciously resembles a world where he doesn't exist.

Quote:Or if you weren't scared to work that little mind of your just a little harder, just a little past your typical shut down/close down point you'd see, that "He's not God, would have been the CORRECT answer if He allowed 2000 years of a Christ written gospel to corrupt the new covenant as the last handwritten document from God did with Judaism.

God needs to hire a better writer.

Quote:No If Christianity were a man inspired/fueled religion you would see the same failures the Jews made with God over and over again. starting with how God's word was issued.

*facepalm*

Quote:Let say for a moment God decided to simply create an account on AF.org and directly answer a few of your posts... how in the ff's would you know you were talking to God if you idea of Him was all screwed up in your little head, that says God can only be ABC?

Why is this question always asked in the context of God giving us one piece of evidence for his existence?  "If god showed up and performed a parlor trick..."

Maybe you expect too little from God.  You make him sound weak and incompetent.

I expect nothing from any fucking god and even less from dripshit.

(December 14, 2016 at 11:07 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(December 14, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Except that is not what dripshit's precious gospels say.  In fact, Pilate's reaction seems best described by the phrase "who is this fucking guy?"

I think I mentioned it before, but you get the impression that the gospel writers were keen on making nice with the Roman authorities.  As unimpressed as Pilate is, he nonetheless stresses that he can't find anything that Jesus has done wrong, forcing the Jewish leaders to practically beg that the blame for his death fall on them.  He washes his hands --literally!-- of the whole affair and the crowd eagerly accepts this.  When Jesus dies it is the Roman soldiers who recognize that "he was the son of God."  One of Peter's keys to the kingdom of heaven is used to convert Cornelius, a Roman centurion whose prayer was answered directly by an angel of God.  You wonder if there wasn't at least some hope that their new religion would be more palatable to Rome, especially if they were written during (or just after) a time of Jewish revolt.

I wouldn't be surprised that all the stuff about Romans accepting Yeshua as son of yhwh comes from the period when jesusim was made the state religion of the Empire, some time in the 4th century. At the time the bibles were first written the imperial cult was riding high, so positing a being higher than even the imperator divi and hoping he'd be acceptable to Rome would be a foolish idea.

Maybe he did write things, but it was rubbish so they had to make up other stuff.

(December 16, 2016 at 12:12 pm)robvalue Wrote: Maybe he did write things, but it was rubbish so they had to make up other stuff.

Erotica maybe [emoji15]

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

(December 16, 2016 at 12:12 pm)robvalue Wrote: Maybe he did write things, but it was rubbish so they had to make up other stuff.

well, we do have the Apostle Paul retconning what Matthew wrote . . . .


Jesus said it.

Matthew recorded it inerrantly in Holy Scripture

and fucking Paul changed it . . . .



Way to go Paul, invalidate the goddamn faith, Jesus fucking Christ, what kinda bullshit fake reward did Satan promise, you get to fuck Judas in the ass or something ?