Is This The Real Reason Jesus Was Crucified?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 33
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Insurrection? .

Yes, insurrection against Rome. What  bible evidence is there?

The major clue comes from the  Mark 15:7 KJV, where biblically the New Testament introduces briefly a rebel by the name of Barabbas - Son of the father. This name could also indicate that Barabbas was the son of a Jewish leader. More interesting is the NIV biblical fact that this rebel's first name we are told is also - Jesus.

Matthew 27:17 New International Version
17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”
As do the GNT, CEV, NAB, NET, NRSV versions.

Matthew 27:17 Contemporary English Version
17 So when the crowd came together, Pilate asked them, “Which prisoner do you want me to set free? Do you want Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”

What has to be asked here is what is the link between this rebel "murderer of Romans", Jesus and "the turn the other cheek, love thy enemies", Jesus?

Could it be insurrection?

We are told in the bible that for some unexplainable reason that on "festival" days of the year that Rome would offer a dispensation , that is to say  exemption from a rule or usual requirement.

Matthew 27:15-17 New International Version
15 Now it was the governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas. 17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”

The bible says that this festival was the Jewish Passover. Really?  Why would a Roman Procurator be interested, indeed feel obliged to partake in such festivals never mind release a murderer on the say so of the Jews?  There is no evidence that this custom of dispensation of releasing enemies of Rome was ever practiced.

Looking at various versions of Mark 15:7 it is notable that the word - insurrection goes through a change and is altered to - revolt,  uprising, sedition or rebellion which all happen to be crimes against the state of Rome with the only punishment being - crucifixion.
 Are we to believe that Pilate a Governor of Rome would release a "murderer" and enemy of Rome rather than a passive sandal wearing preacher? 

 The answer can only come in Mark 15:7 where we  can clearly read the biblical evidence:

Mark 15:7 King James Version  " And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection". /revolt,  uprising, sedition or rebellion.

 Problem here though is that the only time any of these preferred terms are used is in that one single verse. Which can only lead to another question:
What rebellion!?
 The only time we here of Jesus committing anything even near "rebellious" is when he is said to have overturned the tables of the money changes and driven them out with a piece of cord which amounts to nothing more than a hissy-fit and nothing at all even resembling a "revolutionary uprising" where Jesus Barabbas committed murder/s.

 Or are the gospel writers simply playing down the role that Jesus the Christ played in what was in reality a full blown assault on the state of Rome and its puppet representatives?
 It may well be the case when we look at just one of Jesus the Christ's  disciples in particular:  Thaddaeus......
.......TBC

 




#2
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Ita common knowledge among Bible scholars that the jews condemning Jesus to die was ret conned in, and given the sermon in the mount was a declaration of war in Roman's, though it was advocating a non violent type of resistance, he did seem a legitimate threat to Rome, however I think even a non legitimate threat to Rome would have also been crucified if he poked his head out too far
#3
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen

But essentially the Roman's had a rule that they could only slap you with their left hand and Jesus said to turn the other cheek to force them to slap resistors with their clean hand. Jesus said if a soldier asks you to carry his stuff 1 mile, do it for 2, because there was a Roman law that they could only have conquered people carry their stuff one Mile. The sermon on the mount was a call for resistance to Rome specifically and it is basically the Ghandi approach that was so effective at defeating the British in more recent history. 
Topic's author
#4
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ponikshiy
As I clearly explain to you here>>>>>   

Most of the theist here  rely strictly on the scriptures for their faith and beliefs and will reject anything extra biblical. -With the attitude - if it ain't in the bible it ain't true. The Reverend Tradesecret is such a  stickler.  Although  they will allow themselves  speculations and assertions ( and present them as biblical fact) they will not afford the opposition the same privilege.

 This is  why I always endeavour to keep my threads strictly to the biblical "evidence". 


Topic's author
#5
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
The rebel Jesus Barabbas had taken part in an insurrection and I posed some questions above #1

Keeping in mind that name Barabbas means  son of the father:

What is it that could possibly be the link between the rebel "murderer of Romans" Jesus Barabbas,  and "the turn the other cheek, love thy enemies", Jesus?


 It may well be the case when we look at just one of Jesus the Christ's  disciples in particular:  Thaddaeus......

 The Bible doesn't mention how Thaddaeus was recruited as it does some other disciples, he just appears on a list and that's all we get.

Thaddaeus; or Lebbaeus or Judas the Zealot in Matthew and Mark's gospel, known as Judas, son of James, not Iscariot in Luke and John's gospel and Acts.
He is also known as Jude and Judas Brother of James.

Thaddaeus - In the bible there is absolutely nothing recorded by this man under this name only as mentioned on the list of 12 disciples!?
Labbaeus - In the bible there is absolutely nothing recorded by this man under this name and is only mentioned on the list of 12 disciples!?!?
Judas the Zealot -In the bible there is absolutely nothing recorded by this man under this name!?
Judas, son of James.
It is only here and under this name that this man with four names is recorded as saying anything at all worth of note in John 14:22 NIV. This verse is interesting in that this Zealot is asking Jesus why he is keeping his identity secret from the "rest the world "? Why indeed? Maybe it was because it wasn't the right time and he wasn't ready and another "miracle" was needed?

The name Thaddaeus/Lebbaeus is believed to mean "man of courage" "sent from god" or "courageous". Why is he known for his courage? The bible on the surface mentions nothing concerning a single courageous action by this Zealot with many names.

So the disciple Thaddaeus - son of - James  is also none other than the New Testament rebel and seditionist -  Barabbas, and it is this that clearly links him to Jesus "the Christ". 

 Which brings us to another question posed above#1: 

  Are the gospel writers simply playing down the role that Jesus the Christ played in what was in reality, not a hissy fit thrown by that table turning Jesus: Matthew 21:12-13, but a full blown rebellious act of sedition against the state of Rome and its puppet representatives, for which there was only one penalty- death by crucifixion.?

Does this answer the question?

Luke 13 King James Version
 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish......


To be continued.....
Topic's author
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I asked above:
Are the gospel writers simply playing down the role that Jesus the Christ played in what was in reality, not a hissy fit thrown by that table turning Jesus: Matthew 21:12-13, but a full blown rebellious act of sedition against the state of Rome and its puppet representatives, for which there was only one penalty- death by crucifixion.?

Does this answer the question?

Luke 13 King James Version
 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things?
 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish......

Again this is another half story that the gospel authors seem keen to glide over if not totally bury. The verse above clearly tells us that this cost the lives of some 18 Galileans yet there is no mention that this happened at the table turning hissy fit thrown by Jesus in the episode as told at Matthew 21:12. 

I asked above; What insurrection? concerning  Mark 15:7 King James Version  " And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection"./revolt,  uprising, sedition or rebellion.

Was  this the insurrection that Mark is referring to where this had cost the lives of some 18 Galileans  as told at Matthew 21:12. ?
 Indeed, when these two gospel episodes are taken together it appears that when Jesus overturned the tables of the money lenders it was far more worse than Jesus losing his temper, it was indeed a full blown riot where a tower was caused to collapse "killing  eighteen Galileans". 

 Is there more evidence of yet another episode where violence appears to have ensued that is also linked to Mark 15:7 and Matthew 21:12? And what kind of tower was the falling Siloam tower that had caused the deaths of 18 Galileans ?






#7
SethBrown
SethBrown's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 102
0
1
7
SethBrown's avatar
SethBrown
0
1
7
-->
@Stephen
Jesus wasn’t crucified for being an messiah, there isn’t anything in the track dates that day it’s criminal to claim to be the messiah, many Jews have done it before & after Jesus, what earned him his condemnation infront of the Sanhedrin was claiming to be the son of man, that would truly be criminal since the son of man is divine in a sense (he can forgive sins & will rule over heaven), but you see the Sanhedrin didn’t have the ability to carry out capital punishment, so they presented him to the Roman authorities as a political figure, this allowed the Roman authorities to punish him with what was fit for an political figure, the cross.
#8
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@SethBrown


.
Seth Brown,

YOUR TRULY IGNORANT BIBLE QUOTE: "Jesus wasn’t crucified for being an messiah, there isn’t anything in the track dates that day it’s criminal to claim to be the messiah"

Heads up Bible fool, Jesus was NOT THE MESSIAH, because He had to be born "from the flesh of the line of David" of which He was NOT!
 
Since Jesus was born by Marys own son Jesus celestially impregnating her in spiritual incest, and since Mary is a LEVITE as shown within the scriptures and not from the the line of David, then Jesus cannot be the messiah as explained above, period!  Since Joseph WAS NOT Jesus' "paternal father," and was from the line of David, but as the Bible says, the messiah has to be from the flesh of David's line, therefore Joseph's Davidic line is moot!  Get it?

Seth Brown, learn your Bible before you make a Bible fool of yourself in front of the membership again, okay?  We thank you in advance.

.


#9
SethBrown
SethBrown's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 102
0
1
7
SethBrown's avatar
SethBrown
0
1
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1st off this has absolutely nothing to do with if Jesus is or is not messiah, I was answering why he was crucified, and it wasnt because he claimed to be messiah, instead because he claimed to be son of man.

Heads up Bible fool, Jesus was NOT THE MESSIAH, because He had to be born "from the flesh of the line of David" of which He was NOT!
Have you read the bible? I dont like criticizing people because they haven't read the whole bible but quite literally the 1st few verses of the bible explain the lineage of jesus
Matthew 1:1-16:
1 This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham:

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
clearly shows he is from the lineage of david


Since Jesus was born by Marys own son Jesus celestially impregnating her in spiritual incest
That is completely false, again in the very 1st chapter of the bible Matthew 1:18:
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
It was the holy spirit, not the son, and as we know the holy spirit is not the son, the son is not the father, and the father is not the holy spirit.

and since Mary is a LEVITE as shown within the scriptures and not from the the line of David, then Jesus cannot be the messiah as explained above, period!
Where did you get her being a levite? Mary was not a Levite, as tribal affiliation in ancient Israel came through the father and Mary’s father (Joachim) was from the tribe of Judah.
 Since Joseph WAS NOT Jesus' "paternal father," and was from the line of David, but as the Bible says, the messiah has to be from the flesh of David's line, therefore Joseph's Davidic line is moot!  Get it?
Oooooh so your saying he's not of David since Mary wasn't of David's flesh, Genesis 2:24 says they will become 1 flesh from marriage, and as we know david & mary were married (although joseph was reluctant to do intercourse), making them one flesh, therefore from the flesh of david's line.

Seth Brown, learn your Bible before you make a Bible fool of yourself in front of the membership again, okay?  We thank you in advance.
I hate to be rude but you sprouted lies, im not sure what you mean I need to learn my own bible when it doesnt appear as if you understand it.
#10
SethBrown
SethBrown's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 102
0
1
7
SethBrown's avatar
SethBrown
0
1
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Dont get the wrong idea, I dont think Jesus fulfilled the people's expectations of the messiah, that's part of what got him killed, but he is indeed from the line of david

even if he wasnt the evidence behind the resurrection would be yahweh's public vindication's of the man who was rejected as a blasphemer.
Topic's author
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

From above #6 I asked:
 Is there more evidence of yet another episode where violence appears to have ensued that is also linked to Mark 15:7 (Barabbas rebellion) and Matthew 21:12(Jesus over turns the tables)?
And what kind of tower was the falling Siloam tower that had caused the deaths of 18 Galileans ?

From the passage in Luke 13  it at first appears that Jesus was notpresent at this "blood mingling" by Pilate andthe incident is only being relayed to him of what had occurred during therebellion at his hands(18dead Galileans) .
So how is it possible to place Jesus at the scene without his disciples knowing about it?
 The answer to this may come from John7:1-10. Jesus is asked:


8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

So he was present "in secrete" and unbeknownst to many others of his disciples.
But someone recognised him when we read again at the table turning episode in Luke:

"And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out".

"if these [disciples] should hold their peace"?
By all accounts they were simply waving palm leaves so what for what reason did his disciples need rebuking ? And we haven't even reached the part in the same chapter where it is said Jesus took a cord and whipped the the money lenders and over turned the tables? This was not a simple proclamation of a King of the Jews this was a full frontal assault on the authority of Rome and a military raid on the temple authorities , and Jesus' disciples were clearly not acting in a peaceful manner at all. 
It may be of notable interest that this seditious and rebellious episode appears to be all down to  no others but "Galileans". And anyone that has read my thread of Jesus' chosen 12  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152-the-story-of-the-certain-witnesses?page=6&post_number=153 will  known that all of Jesus's twelve were Galilean zealots. Of which  Nathanael said " Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth"? Which was located the northern part of Galilee.

What about the Tower of Siloam? What kind of tower was it? Again the bible is silent . But we can get an idea of what it was from none other than Jewish historian Flavius Josephus..

....To be continued.




#12
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen
@SethBrown


.
Seth Brown,

YOUR SPECIFIC QUOTE TO STEPHEN: ”Jesus wasn’t crucified for being an messiah,…” 

Barring that you didn’t use the word “the” instead of “an” in your Bible stupid misguided quote above, you therefore agreed that Jesus was the messiah in your statement, understand the English language? Huh?


YOUR IGNORANT QUOTE: “Have you read the bible?”

Most certainly, and I have forgotten more than you will EVER LEARN from the Bible in your entire lifetime Bible fool!


Now, to not clog up Stephens thread with another topic of your comical assumption that Jesus is from the line of David, then you are to create a new thread about Jesus being the messiah in this respect, where I will literally Bible Slap you Silly®️ in front of the membership at your expense upon this topic! UNDERSTOOD?

Jesus' true words and I will be waiting!

.



Topic's author
#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Now, to not clog up Stephens thread with another topic of your comical assumption that Jesus is from the line of David, then you are to create a new thread about Jesus being the messiah in this respect,

I appreciate your consideration, Brother D.. And I too would be very interested to read how 'new member' Seth Brown squares these contradictory biblical lineages in a thread of his own considering that the BIBLE also states Mary conceived via the "holy spirit".
#14
SethBrown
SethBrown's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 102
0
1
7
SethBrown's avatar
SethBrown
0
1
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Barring that you didn’t use the word “the” instead of “an” in your Bible stupid misguided quote above, you therefore agreed that Jesus was the messiah in your statement, understand the English language? Huh?
I made a grammatical error, that does not dismiss the fact that you said Jesus was not from the line of David when the Bible in the 1st few verses says he is.

Most certainly, and I have forgotten more than you will EVER LEARN from the Bible in your entire lifetime Bible fool!
You either forgot the genealogy or skipped over it, I’m betting the later

Now, to not clog up Stephens thread with another topic of your comical assumption that Jesus is from the line of David, then you are to create a new thread about Jesus being the messiah in this respect, where I will literally Bible Slap you Silly®️ in front of the membership at your expense upon this topic! UNDERSTOOD?
Well I can’t make threads, given I haven’t made 25 posts, but I did dm you challenging you to an debate over it, dm me back and we will work out the details.

#15
SethBrown
SethBrown's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 102
0
1
7
SethBrown's avatar
SethBrown
0
1
7
-->
@Stephen
Apologies for clogging up your thread, I’ll move to a debate with brother Thomas 
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,190
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@SethBrown
I always thought that Jesus was from the line of GOD.

Virgin births and all that.
#17
SethBrown
SethBrown's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 102
0
1
7
SethBrown's avatar
SethBrown
0
1
7
-->
@zedvictor4
I think that would imply god (as in the father or/& the holy spirit) created the son which they didnt, its a curious question because the virgin birth is not discussed in detail.

Jesus was also of Mary though, & mary is of david since she was married to joseph (Joseph is directly from david, if your curious read the genealogies) and since they were married their "flesh" became one
#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,190
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@SethBrown
Well, such is interpretation.



Though in the commonly held story, Jesus was supposedly born of Mary, though not necessarily of Mary. 

And Joe was supposedly not involved in a gametic fusion process.


And "Since they were married their flesh became one" is sermonic hocus pocus. Though whether they were married or not is also open to speculation.

And "Of David" is similarly rhetorical, though not factually provable...Can you trace your lineage back a 1000 years.


So the tale is a mix of possibility, probability and fantasy.

Mythological in other words.


Like, I am of the line of Arthur...Prove me wrong.
#19
SethBrown
SethBrown's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 102
0
1
7
SethBrown's avatar
SethBrown
0
1
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Regarding that last comment I’d love to see a genealogy, I don’t think it being 1,000 years out would necessarily make it nuanced or anything, if your doing an internal critique you’d also have to accept that, as to how the record was obtained, I am unaware, most scholars think the gospels drew upon another source that either didn’t survive or hasn’t been found yet. Jesus could’ve known it through the Father, his (non-biological) father Joseph could’ve told him, tons of possibilities. 

And the 2 flesh become 1 isn’t mumbo jumbo, you need to take into context for the “flesh of David”

Sadly brother d hasn’t responded to my debate request
#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,190
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@SethBrown
Nope. Bro D isn't a keen debater.

And I agree, "tons of possibilities".


Nice to see a new name.
#21
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4


Zed,

YOUR QUOTE TO ME BEING THE #1 TRUE CHRISTIAN UPON DEBATEART:  "Nope. Bro D isn't a keen debater."

HUH? I can't count time times that I have debated Bible ignorant pseudo-christians within the "Religion Forum" to show their true Satanic colors, and you have the audacity to say that I am not a "keen debater?"  LOL!

Embarrassingly, within your ever so weak biography of nothingness your debating skills are ZERO as shown below!!!

Debate Stats

Total  22
Won  5
Lost  12
Tied  5
Win ratio. 34.09%

Reread your nothing biography next time before you as the "pot" are calling  the "kettle" black to save you from further embarrassment in front of the membership!  Priceless!

NEXT?

.



#22
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4

I think BrotherD is a Master debater. Praise the Lord !
#23
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@SethBrown


.
Seth Brown, the Bible ignorant fool,

YOUR QUOTE THAT IS GOING TO EXPIRE SOON SO AS I CAN MAKE YOU THE TOTAL BIBLE FOOL THAT YOU ARE!!!:  "Well I can’t make threads, given I haven’t made 25 posts, but I did dm you challenging you to an debate over it, dm me back and we will work out the details."

First thing Bible dolt, I DO NOT do any type of direct messaging discussions, whereas I want to show the entire membership in how certain pseudo-christians like YOU are Bible stupid, understood?  Huh?

Therefore, we will wait for your magic number of 25 posts to be able to find your "big boy pants" and make a thread of yours relative to your misguided notion of Jesus is from the line of David, and where comically your Bible STUPIDITY allows you to say that Mary is also from the line of David!  ROFLOL!!!  

Don't you dare run away from your quest shown above like Miss Tradesecret would have to do, do you understand? The membership is watching!


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE FOOL LIKE "SETH BROWN" THAT STATES THAT JESUS IS FROM THE LINE OF DAVID, WILL BE ...?

.
#24
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@FLRW


.
FLRW,

YOUR QUOTE: "I think BrotherD is a Master debater. Praise the Lord !"

You are correct, in that I am a "Master" of showing ALL of the true words of Jesus in being a "Debater" in this respect in His behalf!

Jesus and I thank you for praising Him like you did.

.
Topic's author
#25
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Seth Brown, the Bible ignorant fool,

YOUR QUOTE THAT IS GOING TO EXPIRE SOON SO AS I CAN MAKE YOU THE TOTAL BIBLE FOOL THAT YOU ARE!!!: [Seth Brown wrote: ] "Well I can’t make threads, given I haven’t made 25 posts, but I did dm you challenging you to an debate over it, dm me back and we will work out the details."
Sounds all very  Public-Choice modus operandi. He too wanted me to hold a discussion via direct messaging only. Makes one wonder what they are afraid of?



First thing Bible dolt, I DO NOT do any type of direct messaging discussions, whereas I want to show the entire membership in how certain pseudo-christians like YOU are Bible stupid, understood?  Huh?
Indeed Brother D. What else is a public forum for?


Therefore, we will wait for your magic number of 25 posts to be able to find your "big boy pants" and make a thread of yours relative to your misguided notion of Jesus is from the line of David, and where comically your Bible STUPIDITY allows you to say that Mary is also from the line of David!  ROFLOL!!!  
Brother D. Unless you have the lung capacity of a Polynesian pearl diver, do not hold your breath.  14 down 11 to go.



Don't you dare run away from your quest shown above like Miss Tradesecret would

But he will.



#26
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,053
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
I think BrotherD is a Master debater. Praise the Lord !
Yes! Praise Jesus's revenge!

#27
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen


Stephen,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE RELATIVE TO THE BIBLE IDIOT SETH BROWN:  "Brother D. Unless you have the lung capacity of a Polynesian pearl diver, do not hold your breath.  14 down 11 to go."

YES, only 11 more inane posts by Seth Brown for him to bring forth an actual thread by him in being totally wrong about his assumed knowledge of Jesus being from the line of David, and are you ready, Mary too being from the linage of David! HOW BIBLE STUPID CAN YOU GET? LOL!

Remember when I easily Bible Slapped Silly®️ Miss Tradesecret upon this same topic, where she had to go into hiding for months before sheepishly returning?!

Sorry to be messing up your thread because of the Bible fool Seth Brown, but when he finds his balls and creates said thread in question, Jesus' true words and I will show his Bible Buffoonery®️ to the entire membership, so get the popcorn ready and cold beers for this entertainment at his expense!


.




#28
SethBrown
SethBrown's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 102
0
1
7
SethBrown's avatar
SethBrown
0
1
7
-->
@zedvictor4
He doesn’t seem too keen, more just a “mocker” to be honest, thanks for the welcome.
#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,190
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
No time or inclination for serious debating Bro.

Just a fun thing I do very occasionally.

Stats and winning of no importance.


Regards.

Zed.
#30
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,190
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@SethBrown
Bro D is Bro D.

And their attitude is not to be taken to heart.

In so much as Bro D is Bro D.

If you get my drift.


Regards 

Zed.