(March 2, 2015 at 8:57 pm)Godschild Wrote: Wait a minute why are you jumping around, from v. 31 and then go back to verse 27 and then quote v. 29 as if it took place after v. 31.It's called "explaining the context". I refer to something that happened later to explain what he meant by what he said earlier.
Quote:The next verses are told by John as the events that had happened at an earlier meeting.Aside from your fevered imagination, what, if anything, do you base that assertion on.
Quote:John's gospel is not about a specific time lineReally? Let's go to the tape.
The Gospel of John Wrote:John 1:29 The next day...
1:35 Again the next day after...
1:43 The day following...
2:1 And the third day ...
Sounds pretty specific about both time and order of events to me.
There was one baptism and one temple cleansing, John's gospel is not held to a specific time line or an orderly one.
Quote:You couldn't prove anything to me,So it is with people who don't listen, don't want to be bothered with the facts and don't want to ever consider they might be wrong.
Quote:I do not buy crap from anyone,You bought into the Bible.
Quote:I've dismissed nothing and it's rude that you presumed I would.I didn't presume. That's what you did.
Quote:I explained to you how the gospel's account for what seems like a controversy isn't one, unless someone does like you and twist the verses around in John's gospel to seem like they are say something they do not.I'm not "twisting". I'm reading what's there. You're the one inventing obtuse "interpretations" to try to make the square round. Skepticism isn't an agenda. Skepticism is just reading one holy scripture with the same critical thinking you would with anyone else's. Apologetics is an agenda. It starts with the conclusion and tries to find (or invent) reasons to believe it.
The fact that you would obviously disagree with other Christian apologists who have used the "two temple cleansings" argument only underscores how muddled and confusing your book is. Even those explaining away the contradictions can't get their story straight among them.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
