(October 15, 2013 at 4:37 pm)John V Wrote: Yes, we get it. When you propose an addition to the text, it's a logical conclusion. When we do the same, it's fan-fic.

Wrong. I'm not adding to the text. "These people came to that house to visit so and so" suggests, unless otherwise noted in the story, that the house belongs to "so and so". I think it's fair to say everyone would read it that way but for your need to square it with Luke, whereupon you write a "good explanation" for it.

In sum, my explanation for the mysterious house is:
"That's his house"

No fan fic required. Nothing else need be added to the Gospel story according to Matthew.

Your explanation for the mysterious house is roughly,
"Joseph arrived for the census, went back to Nazareth, then returned to Bethlehem because he got a great job offer and then had to flee to Egypt."

Occam's Razor.

(October 15, 2013 at 4:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Wrong. I'm not adding to the text.

Yes, you are. Watch:

Quote:"These people came to that house to visit so and so" suggests, unless otherwise noted in the story, that the house belongs to "so and so". I think it's fair to say everyone would read it that way but for your need to square it with Luke, whereupon you write a "good explanation" for it.

In sum, my explanation for the mysterious house is:
"That's his house"

There it is - you added to the text.

Quote:Your explanation for the mysterious house is roughly,
"Joseph arrived for the census, went back to Nazareth, then returned to Bethlehem because he got a great job offer and then had to flee to Egypt."

Occam's Razor.

No, my explanation is - it's a house. I don't know whose. Anything more is an explanation to your addition to the text, not the text itself.

It's a house. We don't know whose. Simplest interpretation. Occam's Razor.

Odd complaint from a shithead who reads about an "empty tomb" and concludes that his godboy came back from the fucking dead and flew up to heaven.

You remain an ass, johnboy. That's never going to change.

(October 15, 2013 at 4:52 pm)max-greece Wrote: Gotta say if there is one thing I love about Godschild's posts its that he always signs them GC and I think immediately of.....

George Carlin.

OK George he ain't - but it does make me giggle.

Glad it makes you happy. I'm also glad I'm not George Carlin.

GC

Quote:All three Synoptics agree that John the Baptist puts himself down and denies he's the messiah, that he is instead merely a forerunner for Jesus. Oddly enough, his followers stubbornly continued to regard him as the messiah, being rivals with the early Christians.

Show me the bible text which states that all John the Baptists followers thought he was the Messiah
That WOULD be odd.
...if it were true.

(October 15, 2013 at 5:04 pm)John V Wrote: There it is - you added to the text.

No, I didn't. It's the logical conclusion.

Story: "Person A went to that house to see person B."

Without any more information given in the story, the natural assumption is the house belonged to person B. Other elements in that chapter also indicate Bethlehem was Joseph's home, already explained ad neuseum.

(October 15, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Show me the bible text which states that all John the Baptists followers thought he was the Messiah

It doesn't. History does.

Reading these christards attack DPs rational unassuming reading of their own text is nauseating.

When you read even the simplest of scripture verses for what it is - these douche bags STILL want to re-interpret it so that they can justify their sick fantasies about an afterlife they're never going to see.



god damn they're as annoying as they are gullible.

(October 15, 2013 at 10:38 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(October 15, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Show me the bible text which states that all John the Baptists followers thought he was the Messiah

It doesn't. History does.

You quote the bible selectively claiming theres internal contradictions and THEN you admit that that the problem isnt even IN the bible. You did that here as well;

Quote:...Could it all just be propaganda, an attempt to incorporate the icons of a rival religion, like Islam does to Jesus?

If you based your position solely on the text you claim to have carefully read, you wouldnt need to do this sort of irrelevant speculation. Speculation that does nothing to support your theory.
You are arguing from silence yet you won’t allow biblical theists the benefit of the doubt.

(October 16, 2013 at 12:11 am)Lion IRC Wrote: You quote the bible selectively claiming theres internal contradictions and THEN you admit that that the problem isnt even IN the bible. You did that here as well;

If you based your position solely on the text you claim to have carefully read, you wouldnt need to do this sort of irrelevant speculation. Speculation that does nothing to support your theory. You are arguing from silence yet you won’t allow biblical theists the benefit of the doubt.

That is an outright misdirection. It is you and the other two christards who will not allow the benefit of the doubt by accepting the simple translation of your bible. You will only allow it to be interpreted as you see fit and the way you see fit contradicts what it actually says. One must assume when reading anything that the author meant what is simply written and not the most absurd or unlikely possibility available. ... This is compounded when one pretends that the author is the all powerful creator of the universe and claims that he would never be the 'author of confusion.'