The Story of the "certain" Witnesses?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 166
#91
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Interesting it is that although this thread has been relatively left alone by other members and seems to have boiled down to just you and me, rather than taking advantage of this perfect and rare opportunity to discuss and debate and seek to prove the rightness of your cause by the use of any effective argument or discussion you would rather me just shut up and go away. That won't be happening anytime soon, and your slights and veiled jibes are not working. 
It has been pleasant that most of the time you recently don't throw jibes. But you do it enough for me to not care anymore. it's not like this is the only site that talks about religion and you are mostly unpleasant to me. 

I'm certainly happy to discuss but your diatribe mostly just makes me not want to engage. And your support of Brother leaves me with the view that you don't really want to discuss. So deal with the professionally and let's discuss. Stop being a dick all the time and perhaps we might actually learn together. You don't know everything and neither do I. I know you think you are intellectually miles above me. But honestly your attitude doesn't show it. 

 think you are just cutting and pasting someone else's work. Try and to do something original. 

Then if that is what you sincerely believe, I suggest you seek out this other work and search it for flaws and pit falls and good argument. Because to my knowledge no one has discussed or questioned or written about the identity of these two "certain " accuser and I would love to see this work for myself as I am sure others here would.

Meanwhile, if you genuinely want to discuss this topic give this rare opportunity, I suggest that you look into your boy Simon Peter who the lord called Satan or any of the other nine Simons, as I have done. For instance: 
when Jesus was invited to Simon the Leper's house, is Simon literally suffering from leprosy? Meanwhile, I shall endeavour persevere.

Prove me wrong. Prove to me that you actually have something that is worth discussing. If you genuinely want to discuss this subject - stop with your pretentiousness.  I am happy to oblige but not if you going to continue the same tired old lines that you have done so before. So with that - the ball is in your court. 
Topic's author
#92
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I'm certainly happy to discuss but your diatribe mostly just makes me not want to engage. 

Then do not engage. I didn't drag you here,.. There has been no rants or "diatribe" on this, thread Trade secret.  So, I can take it that you will be leavening my thread. That is regretful


Prove to me that you actually have something that is worth discussing

 But here you are attempting to discuss something you don't see as worth discussing. 

If you are serious, then answer these questions if you can.


What do these Simons have in common, if anything?


Simon “called” Peter.
Simon Zealot.
Simon the Pharisee.
Simon the Leper.  

When Jesus was invited to Simon the Leper's house, is Simon literally suffering from leprosy?
#93
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
What do these Simons have in common, if anything?


Simon “called” Peter.
Simon Zealot.
Simon the Pharisee.
Simon the Leper.  

Well they are all mentioned in the gospels. They all seem to have the same first name.  There are several other Simons you missed as well. 

All knew Jesus. 

When Jesus was invited to Simon the Leper's house, is Simon literally suffering from leprosy?
That's an interesting question.  After all, lepers were generally put outside the city.  So it is likely a nickname for Simon. Either because had been healed from leprosy in the past or that he at some time after this situation got sick with Leprosy and the writer of the gospel - was able to refer to this event by specificity because people knew who Simon the Leper was.  

I suppose you are going to suggest the same about the other Simons.

Jesus called Simon, Peter. so Peter is his nickname, not Simon. 

Simon the Zealot - zealot was also a nickname. Unsurprisingly, 

Simon the pharisee - it would be referring to his status as a pharisee. 

So - now how about you tell us how you link them together?



Topic's author
#94
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
What do these Simons have in common, if anything?


Simon “called” Peter.
Simon Zealot.
Simon the Pharisee.
Simon the Leper.  

Well they are all mentioned in the gospels. They all seem to have the same first name.  There are several other Simons you missed as well. 

All knew Jesus.
Indeed they all knew Jesus. And I didn't miss any of the others, either.   I mentioned above : Stephen Wrote:  " or any of the other Simons". HERE> #90

I only singled out these particular four because these are the four I am interested in for the moment.



When Jesus was invited to Simon the Leper's house, is Simon literally suffering from leprosy?
That's an interesting question.  After all, lepers were generally put outside the city.  So it is likely a nickname for Simon.
 Well we know for a biblical fact that Jesus often either changed names of some of his disciples and/or indeed gave them nicknames. As did the god the OT. Abram became Abraham, Jacob became Israel etc etc.   So it certainly wouldn't have been unusual for Jesus to have done the same. We know for a biblical fact the he referred to some in Mark 3:17, and gave John and James the nickname "Boanerges" meaning sons of Thunder,  and we know who "Thunder" was. Then we have   "And he [Andrew] brought him [Simon] to Jesus John 1:42 "Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, 'You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas' meaning Stone/rock." Was this Simon to become Peter ? And when we look at the name Jonah we find that name means - Dove.


[A]Either because had been healed from leprosy in the past  [B]or that he at some time after this situation got sick with Leprosy and the writer of the gospel - was able to refer to this event by specificity because people knew who Simon the Leper was.
[A] Well seeing that you are only speculating, I would have said this was unlikely as I am sure it would have been mentioned.
[B] I believe that too to be doubtful. Simply because the bible text has it that he went to the Lepers house. It doesn't state that he was once a leaper or he became a leper. And I try my best to stick with what the bible actually states. I can only, like you, speculate as to what this all means. I believe it was a nick name given to someone of a lower rank  and had not yet been fully accepted into the Jesus movement. If this is not the case then it leaves the story wide open to the obvious question- why didn't Jesus heal this man of his terrible disease?  A man that had been kind enough to invite Jesus (and others it appears) to a meal at his own home? And isn't this the same Simon, ( brother of Andrew) who's Mother-in - Law was cured by Jesus? Or maybe he did "cure the leper" and the bible does mention it? How about this man:

 40 A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”
41 Jesus was indignant He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” 42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.
43 Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: 44 “See that you don’t tell this to anyone. <<<<<< that there at 44 is Jesus telling this man to keep it secret.


I suppose you are going to suggest the same about the other Simons.

Jesus called Simon, Peter. so Peter is his nickname, not Simon. 

Simon the Zealot - zealot was also a nickname. Unsurprisingly, 

Simon the pharisee - it would be referring to his status as a pharisee. 
Well do you think they are  linked in any way to the other Simons?



So - now how about you tell us how you link them together?
I didn't say I could link them together. I simply asked you what they have in common if anything?

But I will say this; If you have read carefully above, it appears to me that Simon the Leper and Simon the disciple could well be one and the same person.



#95
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I disagree. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Simon Peter and Simon the Leper are the same person.  If they were - it would have been evident. But it is not. 

There is no link between any of these Simons except they knew Jesus. 

Your notion about lower ranks is spurious. 

Believe whatever you want - I will stick to the bible.  The gospel writers are not in a habit of hiding things from their readers.  Peter was a clear leader within the apostolic group - even before Jesus' death.


Topic's author
#96
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

it appears to me that Simon the Leper and Simon the disciple could well be one and the same person.


I disagree. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Simon Peter and Simon the Leper are the same person.  If they were - it would have been evident. But it is not.

Well, I did ask you to read carefully.

 For a start, Tradesecret. (1) I didn't say Simon Peter, I have clearly written " Simon the Leper "<< he wasn't a disciple, was he? (2) and in the same sentence I wrote " AND Simon the disciple".

This is exactly what I wrote: Bottom line HERE> #94
Stephen wrote: " If you have read carefully above, it appears to me that Simon the Leper and Simon the disciple could well be one and the same person.
Bottom line HERE> #94,  so we can see that I didn't say Simon Peter, did I?
But who knows there may well be a "link" to all three of them?

Take a another close look at this verse that I posted above:

New International Version
Mark 1:40-41 " A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”
41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”



If they were - it would have been evident [in the bible]. But it is not. 

And that is your only reason for dismissing out of hand everything I say or simply suggest, is it? Even though I have shown you to be wrong and lacking a number of times on this thread already.
And if, as I asked you above to read carefully you may have seen that it is evident. I practically spelt it out for you. So once again, you have shown to be lacking in bible scripture.

 Why don't you list for us the twelve (12) disciples of Jesus's inner circle?


Your notion about lower ranks is spurious. 

I don't believe I would make an outright claim I couldn't support, Tradesecret. I try to leave that kind of mistake to you. And I always admit not to be being able to prove some of the things I suggest, too. We know for a BIBLICAL fact that Jesus had chosen twelve out of  his other disciples and only imparted some of the "mysteries" to them and not the others. This indicates there had to be some kind of hierarchy ranking system as churches have to this day. So it is not as "spurious" as you would like to believe. And the BIBLE indicates this was the case.


I will stick to the bible. 

And that is exactly what I always endeavour to do. I mentioned as such above too:  Stephen wrote: I try my best to stick with what the bible actually states.#94
It is you that  continually ventures outside the realm of scripture and into speculation and guess work without giving any reason why. At least on the rare occasion I do that I give my reasons and for the best part, I support my reasons with scripture. So if you are going to "stick to the bible", then do so, and  do so without your unsupported speculation and guess work.


 The gospel writers are not in a habit of hiding things from their readers.  

We shall have to see.


Peter was a clear leader within the apostolic group - even before Jesus' death.

 Well if that be the case, Tradesecret,  you have just confirmed what I have been suggesting all along. But you just cannot see it can you?







#97
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
When I was wrong I admitted it.  That's called integrity. So what? If only you had such humility. 

Simon the leper may well have become Jesus' disciple. But is he Simon the disciple?   Who knows. But he wasn't Simon the Apostle - which is the inference you are attempting to elucidate. 

Saying Peter is a clear leader is not suggesting there is some kind of secret ranking system.    Jesus was not running some kind of clandestine club to take over Israel or Rome?  

That is just entire nonsense - and even you must have the sense to know that.  But then again you do just get your material from the secret gospel of Mark, a book which has been well and truly discredited.  

And you do make claims you can't support.  You do it all of the time.  As for dismissing your views - because there is no biblical evidence, so what? You do that with my comments quite often. Even in this topic.  DO you think there is one rule for you and one rule for me? 

Topic's author
#98
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Simon the leper may well have become Jesus' disciple. But is he Simon the disciple?   Who knows. But he wasn't Simon the Apostle - which is the inference you are attempting to elucidate. 

Why don't you just put up a list of Jesus' 12 disciples/apostles as I asked you to above. Here>#96 Then we will see who knows what and who doesn't.
#99
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
  1. first, Simon, who is called Peter,  In all the gospels and Acts.
  2. and Andrew his brother; In all the gospels and Acts
  3. James the son of Zebedee, one of the boanerges (Mark) all the gospels and Acts
  4. and John his brother; one of the boanerges (mark) all the gospels and Acts
  5. Philip and  All the gospels and Acts
  6. Bartholomew;  All the gospels and Acts except John where his name is Nathaniel. 
  7. Thomas and All the gospels and Acts but is also called Didymus in John.
  8. Matthew the tax collector; also known as Levi in Mark and Luke, not mentioned in John and Matthew in Acts. 
  9. James the son of Alphaeus, and In all the gospels - and Acts except John
  10. Thaddaeus; or Lbbaeus or Judas the Zealot in Matthew and Mark, known as Judas, son of James, not Iscariot  in Luke and John and Acts. 
  11. Simon the Caananite, and the zealot, not mentioned in John.  
  12. Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. 




 

Topic's author
#100
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

Why don't you just put up a list of Jesus' 12 disciples/apostles
  1. first, Simon, who is called Peter,  In all the gospels and Acts.
  2. and Andrew his brother; In all the gospels and Acts
  3. James the son of Zebedee, one of the boanerges (Mark) all the gospels and Acts
  4. and John his brother; one of the boanerges (mark) all the gospels and Acts
  5. Philip and  All the gospels and Acts
  6. Bartholomew;  All the gospels and Acts except John where his name is Nathaniel. 
  7. Thomas and All the gospels and Acts but is also called Didymus in John.
  8. Matthew the tax collector; also known as Levi in Mark and Luke, not mentioned in John and Matthew in Acts. 
  9. James the son of Alphaeus, and In all the gospels - and Acts except John
  10. Thaddaeus; or Lbbaeus or Judas the Zealot in Matthew and Mark, known as Judas, son of James, not Iscariot  in Luke and John and Acts. 
  11. Simon the Caananite, and the zealot, not mentioned in John.  
  12. Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. 
Thank you, And I appreciate the extra detail in your list.

Ok. So now you have your chosen list, you will remember I asked you what these four Simons had in common, if anything?
Simon “called” Peter.
Simon Zealot.
Simon the Pharisee.
Simon the Leper.  #86

Your reply eventually came like this;

Tradesecrete wrote: " Well they are all mentioned in the gospels. They all seem to have the same first name. All knew Jesus. ".#93


Do you have anything to add to your detailed list or your reply above?





#101
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
The question is whether Simon the Leper is Simon the Pharisee. 

There are admittedly many similarities between the 4 source stories in the gospels. 

but there are also many differences as well. 

Some commentators say yes - some say no. 

the name of perfumes is different.  The days prior to the sabbath are different.

Luke suggests the event took place in Galilee, not Bethany.

the woman in Galilee is a prostitute or sinful woman. 

Mary was from an accepted family, not an outcast.

A former leper could not become a pharisee. 

Some say the house belonged to Simon - and one says the house belonged to Lazeruz and Mary and Martha. 

One was an anointing of a king - the other of a burial. 

Some commentators suggest two events several years apart - with some of the same characters. 

there are some interesting variations in the different readings. 


Topic's author
#102
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Why don't you just put up a list of Jesus' 12 disciples/apostles
  1. first, Simon, who is called Peter,  In all the gospels and Acts.
  2. and Andrew his brother; In all the gospels and Acts
  3. James the son of Zebedee, one of the boanerges (Mark) all the gospels and Acts
  4. and John his brother; one of the boanerges (mark) all the gospels and Acts
  5. Philip and  All the gospels and Acts
  6. Bartholomew;  All the gospels and Acts except John where his name is Nathaniel. 
  7. Thomas and All the gospels and Acts but is also called Didymus in John.
  8. Matthew the tax collector; also known as Levi in Mark and Luke, not mentioned in John and Matthew in Acts. 
  9. James the son of Alphaeus, and In all the gospels - and Acts except John
  10. Thaddaeus; or Lbbaeus or Judas the Zealot in Matthew and Mark, known as Judas, son of James, not Iscariot  in Luke and John and Acts. 
  11. Simon the Caananite, and the zealot, not mentioned in John.  
  12. Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. 
Thank you, And I appreciate the extra detail in your list.

Ok. So now you have your chosen list, you will remember I asked you what these four Simons had in common, if anything?
Simon “called” Peter.
Simon Zealot.
Simon the Pharisee.
Simon the Leper.  #86

Your reply eventually came like this;

Tradesecrete wrote: " Well they are all mentioned in the gospels. They all seem to have the same first name. All knew Jesus. ".#93


Do you have anything to add to your detailed list or your reply above?


The question is whether Simon the Leper is Simon the Pharisee. There are admittedly many similarities between the 4 source stories in the gospels. but there are also many differences as well. Some commentators say yes - some say no. the name of perfumes is different.  The days prior to the sabbath are different.Luke suggests the event took place in Galilee, not Bethany.the woman in Galilee is a prostitute or sinful woman.
Mary was from an accepted family, not an outcast.
A former leper could not become a pharisee. Some say the house belonged to Simon - and one says the house belonged to Lazeruz and Mary and Martha. 
One was an anointing of a king - the other of a burial. 
Some commentators suggest two events several years apart - with some of the same characters. there are some interesting variations in the different readings. 

 Yes all a very ambiguous and contradictory. But we are sticking to what the bible actually states, aren't we.

And you didn't answer my question , Tradesecret:  >.

Stephen wrote: Do you have anything to add to your detailed list or your reply above?#100




#103
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
You make me laugh whenever you say - "we are sticking to what the bible actually says".   Do you mean in what you call its vague and contradictory manner or as you interpret it?

I didn't raise anything above which is not in the bible. 

Lepers can't become pharisees.  Mary was a respectful woman from a respectful house and not a sinful woman. 

One house was owned by Mary and Martha and Lazarus. 

One by Simon the Leper.   There is some noise that suggests that Simon was their father.  

There is always material to add to the above - only a fool would say that they have comprehensively covered the whole. 

But at this point in time, I will leave you to the next place you are attempting to lead us.
Topic's author
#104
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
There is always material to add to the above

 That will be BIBLICAL material will it?



I could have addressed the speculation and ambiguity of what is in your post above at #101 .But it will all be "speculation and guess work" about other peoples speculation and guesswork which muddies the water further, imo. Maybe that is what your hoping to do. 
  It appears to me that it is acceptable to  you for anyone else to  use guesswork and speculate and for you to attempt to  introduce what "others and "some commentators" have to say into your argument as long as they don't happen to be atheist or even neutral. So if you want to discuss what it is "some say "and "others don't" or what "some commentators suggest", I suggest you start your own thread. It is you that continually insists on BIBLCAL evidence.


Tradesecret wrote: I don't have an issue believing the bible#85  Believe whatever you want - I will stick to the bible#95The gospel writers are not in a habit of hiding things from their readers#95

 And don't you say that you are comfortable with how the bible has been translated? And that there is no ambiguity at all. And that you believe it is easy to understand and is crystal clear? Don't you tell us that the bible is your primary source?
Haven't you said yourself that "the bible shouldn't ever be taken literal"? <<<<   And would you like the supporting evidence that comes with all of those comments from the horses mouth?

Indeed, says the man with nothing but flat-out denials of the BIBLICAL evidence and that has done nothing but speculate and guess in response to what what the BIBLICAL evidence actually has to say? .

And you still haven't worked this out have you?

New International Version
Mark 1:40-41 " A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”
41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”


Meanwhile I will  endeavour reveal the identity of these "certain accusers" with BIBLICAL  facts. The BIBLICAL facts that you persistently insist on.



#105
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I could have addressed the speculation and ambiguity of what is in your post above at #101 .

Oh yes - and we are waiting for that to happen. You have nothing else for the lies and the spin you want to present.  A little truth here, a little fact there and suddenly you are the expert. Ok. 

But it will all be "speculation and guess work" about other peoples speculation and guesswork which muddies the water further, imo. Maybe that is what you're hoping to do. 
It's got nothing to do with what I want - this is your narrative and you will produce your guesswork and speculation when you are ready. Once you have prepared the way - then you will strike. That's your motif. that's how you operate. never say anything up front - just squeeze and squeeze and then when you are ready - bang. 

 It appears to me that it is acceptable to  you for anyone else to  use guesswork and speculate and for you to attempt to  introduce what "others and "some commentators" have to say into your argument as long as they don't happen to be atheist or even neutral.
Really?  Well good for you.  I don't care whether someone is atheist. Neutrality is a myth but that is an entirely different subject.  Christianity already had a broad range of ideas to how they interpret the scriptures.  So, what you are saying is ...   ?????


So if you want to discuss what it is "some say "and "others don't" or what "some commentators suggest", I suggest you start your own thread. It is you that continually insists on BIBLCAL evidence.
What you are really saying - is stop it Tradesecret - play my game or go away.  Sadly for you, no I am not going away. 



Tradesecret wrote: I don't have an issue believing the bible#85  Believe whatever you want - I will stick to the bible#95The gospel writers are not in a habit of hiding things from their readers#95

 And don't you say that you are comfortable with how the bible has been translated? And that there is no ambiguity at all. And that you believe it is easy to understand and is crystal clear? Don't you tell us that the bible is your primary source?
LOL @ you for intentional misrepresentation.   I don't have an issue believing the bible.  This is true.  It is not even an issue for me.   Am I comfortable with the way the bible is translated? Yes.  Most translations are reasonably good.  Yeah they all have their issues - but reasonably good.  Ambiguity? I think that is your domain. Are there ambiguous parts in the bible? Absolutely.  But to understand what they mean - no one with real sense would start there, would they? Unless your name is Stephen. 

I think for the most part the bible is easy to understand. I think for the most part it is pretty crystal clear.  Most part doesn't mean every part. There are many parts in the bible which are difficult.  Yet it is still the very minority of it.  That's why most churches and denominations agree on 95% percent of doctrines. It's only a very small part of disagreement. 

Haven't you said yourself that "the bible shouldn't ever be taken literal"? <<<<   And would you like the supporting evidence that comes with all of those comments from the horses mouth?
Well please try to take me in context. I know you find that difficult - especially when you want to always see the worst of me. But what I have said is this. Is language is either literal or allegorical. It either has a specific purpose in its words or it has an underlying mystical meaning which only some can ascertain.  

in my view the bible is written literally. But that doesn't mean we understand that literal is a genre. It means we don't go looking for underlying secrets within its words - that require almost a magical, mystical, or agnostic understanding.  The bible has several genres including poetry, historical narrative, gospel, wisdom literature but NOT literal.   It has no literal genre.   Hence - for an example - God owns the cattle on a 1000 hills has a poetical meaning within a literal context. Not that there are 1000 hills. but that the words have meaning.  


Indeed, says the man with nothing but flat-out denials of the BIBLICAL evidence and that has done nothing but speculate and guess in response to what what the BIBLICAL evidence actually has to say? .

Speculation is something people do without real facts. 



New International Version
Mark 1:40-41 " A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”
41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”


Yes the gospels reveal several lepers receiving a miracle cure from Jesus. Some of the gospels have more than one. 

Meanwhile I will  endeavour reveal the identity of these "certain accusers" with BIBLICAL  facts. The BIBLICAL facts that you persistently insist on.

Well that is what I have requested of you on countless occasions, haven't I? 

Topic's author
#106
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I could have addressed the speculation and ambiguity of what is in your post above at #101 .

Oh yes - and we are waiting for that to happen. 

And I will when and if you start your own thread on the speculation, guesswork and ambiguity of  these"other commentators" in what you appear to be attempting to introduce into this thread as some sort of rebuttal #101  while demanding only BIBLICAL evidence.

So if you want to discuss what it is "some say "and "others don't" or what "some commentators suggest", I suggest you start your own thread. It is you that continually insists on BIBLCAL evidence.
What you are really saying - is stop it Tradesecret - play my game or go away.  Sadly for you, no I am not going away. 
No, Tradesecret. I don't want you to go away. I would simply like you to stick with the BIBLICAL facts as you insist I do.. 

So let us continue with this BIBLICAL evidence for now.


I am going to assume that you are happy with your list of these 12 disciples and I am pleased that you included the extra detail of other names and in which book they are mentioned. It saves any confusion and saved me having to point them out and you arguing over them. - Although you omitted a few important BIBLICAL details which I will fill in myself from the BIBLE. So lets us start breaking them down to see what details you have omitted to add.

Judas Iscariot
Matthew 10:4
Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Same verse different bible.

Matthew 10:4
Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
So above and as you have listed Simon Zealot/Canaanite “who also betrayed him”. This clearly indicates another betrayer. But who was he? What else do we know?

John 6:71
Then Jesus replied,“Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot


 Well we now know the surname of this Simon the Zealot/ Canaanite.don't we. That is two inner circle disciples that are clearly related and we know this because the BIBLE says so.  And again Jesus here is pointing to Judas as being  "the devil". That will be SATAN.

So then we have above a disciple  of Jesus that you clearly identified as Zealot, Canaanite but omitted  Iscariot.<<<The latter appellation being one that is left off your not so detailed list because you didn’t know and it didn’t show up in your cut ’n’ paste. 



#107
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Judas Iscariot
Matthew 10:4
Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Same verse different bible.

Matthew 10:4
Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
So above and as you have listed Simon Zealot/Canaanite “who also betrayed him”. This clearly indicates another betrayer. But who was he? What else do we know?

So two different translations are translating a verse.  Both verses are saying the same thing.  Judas betrayed Jesus. Neither say Simon betrayed him;  just Judas. 

John 6:71
Then Jesus replied,“Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot

Yes. Judas betrayed Jesus. In this verse- Judas is the son of Simon Iscariot.   In other words Simon is a common name and as such is even a name of Judas's dad. 



 Well we now know the surname of this Simon the Zealot/ Canaanite.don't we.
Nope. Please enlighten us. 



Topic's author
#108
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
John 6:71
Then Jesus replied,“Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot

Yes. Judas betrayed Jesus. In this verse- Judas is the son of Simon Iscariot.   In other words Simon is a common name and as such is even a name of Judas's dad. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6%3A70-71&version=NIV


Well you can go on denying what the BIBLE actually states but that will be because I have shown again you to be clueless to the scriptures and cannot face these BIBLICAL facts, Tradesecret .
But that verse clearly sates Judas SON Of Simon Iscariot.

This BIBLICAL verse also indicates another betrayer,

Matthew 10:4
Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

 You, in your own chosen cut 'n' paste list of disciples here>>#99 have pointed out that one of the twelve was "Judas Iscariot,who betrayed him", I didn't.

  Also on your list you make it clear that "Simon the Caananite, and the zealot" are one and the same person. I have simple pointed out that the SIMON Zealot Canaanite also had the appellation or surname Iscariot .

I won't be arguing these BIBLE facts with you simply on the grounds that they are BIBLE facts that you cannot accept.  



And you still haven't worked this out have you?
How many attempts do you need at this verse before the penny drops?
New International Version
Mark 1:40-41 " A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”
41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”





 


#109
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen the verses in Matthew 10 lists all of the disciples.  v.4 lists two names. One is a betrayer.  Judas. The verse goes "who betrayed him".  Do you know the difference between singular and plural? If the writer wanted to suggest both it would have made that clear.  You are really clutching at straws here.  What might be argued using your logic is that everyone of the 12 betrayed him.  Why stop at two? 

And I am not denying the bible. I am reading it and the language. Perhaps you should try doing the same 

I don't have a particular problem with Simon having another name - but you don't actually show that. 

the bible nowhere suggests that Simon betrayed Jesus - or that Judas Iscariot's dad betrayed Jesus either. 

the only evidence is that Judas Iscariot did.  You so desperately want to believe your story - go for it. 

It's just not very convincing.  
Topic's author
#110
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen the verses in Matthew 10 lists all of the disciples.  v.4 lists two names. One is a betrayer.  Judas. The verse goes "who betrayed him".

Yes and the JKV expands slightly and indicates that someone else also betrayed him:

Matthew 10:4
Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Matthew 10:4 KJV - - Bible Gateway And you can ignore that BIBLE fact until you develop hematohidrosis , Tradesecret. But every time you deny it. I will simply repeat it.

And we also know from the BIBLE that the disciple named on your list Simon the Zealot/Canaanite also had the same appellation or surname of Judas “the one that betrayed him”. In fact, the BIBLE clearly states that they were father and son:
HERE> 
John 6:71
Then Jesus replied,“Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
So unless the BIBLE is suggesting that there was another Judas “that was a devil “and also with the surname or appellation Iscariot, then the BIBLE is clearly telling us that Judas Iscariot (“the one that also betrayed him”Matthew 10:4 KJV) and Simon Iscariot are father and son.
And you simply didn't know this appellation because it didn't show up on your cut 'n' paste list of twelve.

I don’t need to expand on this BIBLE fact. I have written what I have written, as the bible says.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So.

Do you remember that I said I would be returning to a question of yours?  Well, I think now is the time to do just that. Here you go, just in case your memory has failed you.

Stephen wrote: And we know for certain that Judas knew the chief Priests. Is this a coincidence? 
[A] tradsecret wrote:  Do we know for certain that he knew the high priest?

Stephen wrote: But you can put the keys to that farm you say that you own on the fact that I will  be coming come back to that particular question that I am glad  you asked.#83

Take a good look at what you asked. And read the verse in question very carefully, here>

John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus, "because this disciple was known to the high priest," 

Here above then at [A] you are questioning what the BIBLE actually states concerning if or not of this"other" following disciple actually did know the high priest?

Well, if it wasn’t Judas as I suggest as a possibility being the “other” following disciple, then doesn’t it stand to reason that it had to be yet another disciple that ALSO betrayed him?

And we are specifically talking a disciple of Jesus in this case aren't we. Because the BIBLE says so, doesn’t it?

You play semantics when it suits you to do so. But wasn’t you that said “High Priests are generally known to most people”.   #82
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




What might be argued using your logic is that everyone of the 12 betrayed him.

Like you often say, "who knows"? We shall have to see.
But you have certainly widened the possibilities and the circle of conspirators against Jesus with your own question above at [A] haven't you? I didn't put that section between lines for nothing.


  Why stop at two? 

Why indeed?  Especially now you and the BIBLE have introduced the possibility of more than one conspirator, Tradsecrete.

The disciples outside of his inner circle of 12 had decided to leave the movement and well before his arrest. But we don’t know, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, if any of the other inner circle had left along with them at the same time, do we?
And we know from the BIBLE that those of his inner circle also ran away when Jesus once was arrested leaving him all on his own.


But let's move on to another Judas, number ten (10) on your list of the twelve shall we.

Thaddaeus; or Lbbaeus or Judas the Zealot in Matthew and Mark, know as Judas, son of James, not Iscariot  in Luke and John and Acts. #99

John’s gospel states he is the son of James and in Mathews gospel he states clearly that this Judas is also a Zealot  while making it clear that this Judas is not to be confused with Judas Iscariot that just happens to be the son of a Zealot. And that this Judas also has another name not mentioned on your cut’ n’ pasted’ chosen list, but you didn’t know that either and is something else that you have omitted from your chosen list#99 his name was also Jude, unless you are going to try tell us that Jesus had thirteen disciples? The interesting thing here is that, Luke's gospel has this Judas down as being only the “brother of James” and not the son. Luke 6:16
Luke 6:16 KJV
“And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.”

Interesting isn’t it, that Luke and Matthew both say “also a traitor”.

Matthew 10:4
Simon the Canaanite, [zealot Iscariot]and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

I am not suggesting here that these two Judas’ are one and the same or even that they have so same father or even related. The point I am making here is that the BIBLE is stating clearly that at this point, Jesus has two Zealots in his inner circle and that anyone following here should perhaps keep this in mind. The history and the nature of the sicarii zealots is well known in theological circles as you must know?

Anyway, be it son or brother of James, you should think on that a while.



#111
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen the verses in Matthew 10 lists all of the disciples.  v.4 lists two names. One is a betrayer.  Judas. The verse goes "who betrayed him".

Yes and the JKV expands slightly and indicates that someone else also betrayed him:

Matthew 10:4
Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Matthew 10:4 KJV - - Bible Gateway And you can ignore that BIBLE fact until you develop hematohidrosis , Tradesecret. But every time you deny it. I will simply repeat it.

In the greek, the sentence does include the word kai.  That is the Greek word, for "and, but, also, and then, yet, even".  It is a grammatical conjunction, a logical ascensive, an emphatic adverb.  The KJV translated it as "also".  But the term kai follows another little word in the greek.  It is o, translated often as "the"  a singular article which is nominative.   In the sentence it is translated "who" since it is singular. A very literal translation is and "Judas Iscariot, the one who also betrayed him.  "also" used in an emphatic sense. 

What is obvious is that it cannot be translated to mean - Simon and Judas betrayed Jesus.  and it cannot be translated to mean that Judas along with some else also betrayed him.     You can repeat it all you like - it doesn't change the facts.   Do you have any authoritative sources that might agree with your bad interpretation?  Or are you going to stand on this really dodgy understanding of the word and try and draw a conclusion that anyone with half an idea of the original languages would just laugh and mock you. 


And we also know from the BIBLE that the disciple named on your list Simon the Zealot/Canaanite also had the same appellation or surname of Judas “the one that betrayed him”. In fact, the BIBLE clearly states that they were father and son:
HERE> 
John 6:71
Then Jesus replied,“Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
So unless the BIBLE is suggesting that there was another Judas “that was a devil “and also with the surname or appellation Iscariot, then the BIBLE is clearly telling us that Judas Iscariot (“the one that also betrayed him”Matthew 10:4 KJV) and Simon Iscariot are father and son.
And you simply didn't know this appellation because it didn't show up on your cut 'n' paste list of twelve.
I am not sure whether to laugh or cry at your stupidity.    There is NO evidence whatsoever that the Simon the Zealot is the same as Simon Iscariot.  It seems that Judas' dad is called Simon.  And so you just draw link to Simon the zealot.   On what basis? On the word "also".  There are many Simons in the bible and in those times.  Yes, it is plausible that Simon the Pharisee is Simon the Leper.  But really? Is that your MO? Just look around - find a Simon - and hey presto. it must prove that there were many betrayers within Jesus' own ranks.  

You will need to do better that what you have done so far. This is just too funny. 

Take a good look at what you asked. And read the verse in question very carefully, here>

John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus, "because this disciple was known to the high priest," 

Here above then at [A] you are questioning what the BIBLE actually states concerning if or not of this"other" following disciple actually did know the high priest?

Well, if it wasn’t Judas as I suggest as a possibility being the “other” following disciple, then doesn’t it stand to reason that it had to be yet another disciple that ALSO betrayed him?
Another disciple - wow! what do the commentators suggest? Many (most) suggest it was the author of the gospel- John. He didn't like to refer to himself very often putting himself in the third person.   My personal view is that it was more likely Lazarus who both wrote the gospel and who was this character. He by the way was a disciple but not an apostle. Lazarus would have known the high priest due to the nature of his being raised from the dead. He was considered a notorious character but also semi-famous. 

I've already indicated what I thought about Judas being known to the high priest. You can go back and have a look.   I didn't deny it. Yes I tried to cast doubt on it. but primarily because you just make assertions and I want to see how far you will run with a pet theory.   I think it would be highly unlikely that the high priest knowing the dodgy dealing here - would have met with Judas himself - but would rather send someone else to do the dirty work.  That's how these sorts of things work.  But even if Judas did know the high priest - this doesn't mean that the high priest would just let him into the courtroom. 

When I suggest that your logic could imply all 12 were in the betrayal together - I was mocking you.  My point was you were attempting to prove too much and it really was a silly argument.  I guess that went to the keeper. 

Also - is unhelpful for you in this discussion. It might be enough to persuade - those who don't speak Greek and who don't understand ordinary English grammar. But the rest of us - just think you are being silly.  Do you have any support whatsoever for this dodgy reading - from an authoritative source - or are you just going to go with "it's in the bible"?  Seriously, I thought you were trying to be serious. 



#112
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
I have one question, who wrote the bible? Does it say who wrote it  in the bible? I tried to read it a couple of times but it just board me to death and couldn't  get past the first few pages. I used to believe in mans version of God, but have since then believed in a creator who I don't think really cares about outcome. All evidence suggest the creator just created, outcome is just a manifestation of the creation. The ten commandments I find to be an excellent moral compass to live by, they have never failed me in life. It is only when I didn't live by them that trouble came. I know this is irrelevant to the topic, but anyone interested in my comment can answer it or anyone not interested can ignore it.
#113
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@sadolite
The "Bible" is a compilation of Middle Eastern folk tales, stories and fantasy from approximately 2000 years ago. In short, a myth.

Most is second hand account, interpretation and reinterpretation ranging in date from a few years after the supposed life of Jesus, to many hundreds of years later.

The King James version wasn't compiled until 1611.


Topic's author
#114
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
"also"

who don't speak Greek 
Says the man that says he “is happy with the English translation”. And “uses the bible as his primary source”.

Yes I knew it wouldn’t be long before you had to fall back to the Greek default.. And I have told you a thousand times, that by doing this, you simply annul, make void and pointless ALL bible written in English. Listen the word “also” means exactly the same in any language.



And we also know from the BIBLE that the disciple named on your list Simon the Zealot/Canaanite also had the same appellation or surname of Judas “the one that betrayed him”. In fact, the BIBLE clearly states that they were father and son:
HERE> 
John 6:71

Then Jesus replied,“Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
So unless the BIBLE is suggesting that there was another Judas “that was a devil “and also with the surname or appellation Iscariot, then the BIBLE is clearly telling us that Judas Iscariot (“the one that also betrayed him”Matthew 10:4 KJV) and Simon Iscariot are father and son.
And you simply didn't know this appellation because it didn't show up on your cut 'n' paste list of twelve.
There is NO evidence whatsoever that the Simon the Zealot is the same as Simon Iscariot

Deary me. Haven’t you said Simon the leper was “either” cured of Leprosy or contracted it later? Where is the bible evidence for this? And haven’t you said that “Leper” was “likely” his nick name”? Where is your bible evidence for this? The is NO evidence, is there!??. So how did you reach both those assumptions if not from other clues and insinuations from the BIBLE, that's how.? Your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze.


The question of Simon the Zealot being Simon Iscariot is the BIBLES insinuation, not my own given what is written.

And let us not forget the many times that you bandy around the words “probable” “possible” and “probable” “doubtful” when trying to force or denying a certain biblical point and clear bible facts.

For instance this outrageous ridiculous comment:

Tradesecret wrote: “It seems doubtful that Peter and Judas were hanging around each other”. #82
This was you clutching desperately at straws in a very poor attempt to put distance between two major players that are on your own list of apostles in inside Jesus' hand picked closed circle!? .
Only a very ill-educated person would even attempt such an excuse.. Does the bible say they didn’t “hang around one another!? But here you are suggest that they didn't “hang around together”. 

And here  above you said > “ “it depends what the writer was trying to say”<<<<< THIS from the same man that tell us the bible is “crystal clear” #55 and that “The authors in the bible are pretty clear about what they want to communicate” #62

I have had to keep remind you many times why I created this thread>> “I am determined to highlight all the possibilities as to the identity of the "certain" accusers.” #86 The clue is in the title.

I am not worried about the gospel writers I doubt it is the gospel writers either.  #78

Well you deny and contradict what they have to say often enough times. and you argue about what they mean too.

Look,Tradsecret, you keep losing track. We are only at this point discussing those Simon’s of your chosen twelve. As you know, there are other Simons that are connected to Jesus; another 7 at least, and I have every intention of discussing some of them in due course. At this juncture I am simply pointing out to you that Judas ‘s father was Simon Iscariot. I haven’t said Simon Iscariot was the “other disciple following”.

I have shown you numerous times The BIBLE clearly states that they both had the same appellation and /or surname. And the BIBLE clearly states “Judas is [he that betrayed him] son of Simon Iscariot”

There is only one other Simon mentioned on your cut ‘n ‘ pasted chosen list of disciples and that is number 1 - Simon called Peter #99 So if you are you are now saying that Judas's father was Simon- called - Peter, I will accept that. But only on the grounds that the BIBLE clearly states that Simon -called – Peter was one of only two disciples that followed Jesus back to the location of the trial. AND let’s not forget both these apostles: Judas and Simon Peter are both called “SATAN” by Jesus.But then outside of Jesus’ circle of we have yet another Simon, don’t we? As I pointed out to you earlier on this thread>>#90


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So.

Do you remember that I said I would be returning to a question of yours?  Well, I think now is the time to do just that. Here you go, just in case your memory has failed you.

Stephen wrote: And we know for certain that Judas knew the chief Priests. Is this a coincidence? 
[A] tradsecret wrote:  Do we know for certain that he knew the high priest?

Stephen wrote: But you can put the keys to that farm you say that you own on the fact that I will  be coming come back to that particular question that I am glad  you asked.#83

Take a good look at what you asked. And read the verse in question very carefully, here>

John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus, "because this disciple was known to the high priest," 

Here above then at [A] you are questioning what the BIBLE actually states concerning if or not of this"other" following disciple actually did know the high priest?

Well, if it wasn’t Judas as I suggest as a possibility being the “other” following disciple, then doesn’t it stand to reason that it had to be yet another disciple that ALSO betrayed him?

And we are specifically talking a disciple of Jesus in this case aren't we. Because the BIBLE says so, doesn’t it?

You play semantics when it suits you to do so. But wasn’t you that said “High Priests are generally known to most people”.   #82

Another disciple – wow!
Yes another disciple. And it was You and the bible that opened the door to the very real possibility. And he might even turn out to be yet another Simon!


My personal view is that it was more likely Lazarus who both wrote the gospel and who was this character.

And you have BIBLICAL evidence that points to Lazarus do you? Does the bible actually state that Lazarus was a disciple?

I've already indicated what I thought about Judas being known to the high priest. You can go back and have a look.   Yes I tried to cast doubt on it.


I know exactly what you said concerning Judas. here>>#60
“And I also highly doubt it was any of Jesus' disciples, including Judas Iscariot.  There is simply not enough data in the texts”
“highly doubt”

I see. Because of “lack of data in the text”. Like I keep telling you, it is that"lack of data in the BIBLE” that makes these half told bible stories ambiguous and unreliable and forces one to assume or surmise, and use conjecture and  speculation and guess work. Just like you persistently have done throughout this thread.   So if you want to continue with your double standards of - you can- I can't , fill your boots.


But even if Judas did know the high priest - this doesn't mean that the high priest would just let him into the courtroom. 

How do you know? Are you assuming this or do you have BIBLICAL evidence?


When I suggest that your logic could imply all 12 were in the betrayal together - I was mocking you.

I know . I have already told you, I never miss you slights, insults and digs but I have ignored them totally on this thread.  But on this occasion and I loved it, because your "mocking" opened the door for me. As did your uncalled for insults from almost the day I signed up here.



 I love it when this happens:

 My personal view is that it was more likely Lazarus who both wrote the gospel and who was this character.He by the way was a disciple but not an apostle.
What makes you say he was a disciple? Does the BIBLE say he was a Disciple? Well NO it doesn't does it!  YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN! The BIBLE clearly states that he was only a "friend".John 11:11

Or shall we start picking the bones out of that  BIBLICAL verse too? Why don't you just deny the verse altogether, that your usual MO when caught out by your own ever increasing bible ignorance.


 You won't be the first person that I have come across that tries submerge his own embarrassment  and ignorance  under derision and mockery. 













#115
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret


.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, says the Bible contradicts itself, and says that the Bible contradicts itself, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!”


YOUR BIBLE STUPIDITY QUOTE REIGNS SUPREME ONCE AGAIN AT YOUR EMBARRASSING EXPENSE, LOL!! : "My personal view is that it was more likely Lazarus who both wrote the gospel and who was this character.He by the way was a disciple but not an apostle."

You say Lazarus was a disciple of Jesus? NOT!!!  LOL!!!   Heads up you inferior woman as the Bible proclaims, here is the list of Jesus' disciples: Peter; James; John; Andrew; Philip; Judas Iscariot; Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of Alpheus; Bartholomew; Judas Thaddeus; and Simon Zelotes.  WAIT, did we see Lazarus in the aforementioned list of Jesus' disciples?  No we didn't you continued Bible fool, LOL!

Then, in your continued  bible stupidity in naming Jesus' 12 disciples in your wanting post #99,  you forgot to mention when Judas Iscariot was removed by the apostles following his betrayal of Jesus and his subsequent death, then Matthias became the 12th disciple!  Your level of Bible understanding is still at a kindergarten level, how sad, but what did we expect from a 2nd class woman like you that goes directly against  1 Timothy 2:11-12!


Miss Tradesecret, as seen, DEBATEART'S Religion Forum now has a "Bible Stupid Club," of which you should be the president of this club since you remain the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool within this Religion Forum, bar none! ROFLOL!!!


THE NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN TO JOIN "MISS TRADESECRETS" BIBLE STUPID CLUB HERE AT DEBATEART'S RELIGION FORUM, WILL BE ...?

.
#116
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So no one supports your dodgy view. How unsurprising.  

The greek is important. I have never said otherwise.  Yes, I am comfortable with the English and the way it is translated in principle. Yet, if there are ambiguities or words that some people wish to take out of context, then the original languages do assist us.  The fact that you are steering clear of the greek and also  attempting to make me seem inconsistent is noteworthy.  

The word also means also. It does not mean simply two people "together with" which is what you are meaning. The text clearly lists 12 disciples. One after the next. These are the 12 disciples, these are their names.  And we get to Judas. And the author says - not only is he a disciple but he ALSO betrayed Jesus.  For your interpretation of "together with" to stand, you would need to demonstrate from within the list that the author says of another disciple, this man is a disciple and betrayed Jesus. And then the word "also" might be stretched to mean "together with".  But none of the other disciples are said to have betrayed Jesus - not in that list.  All of them are named disciples. Which is what we expect.  and then Judas is mentioned.  Yes, he too was a disciple - but he ALSO betrayed Jesus. 

Wake up and smell the roses Stephen. Stop with the silly interpretations. It doesn't make sense what you are saying. You have no other supporters - or at least have not provided any.  

You haven't demonstrated ANYWHERE that Simon the Leper or Simon the Caananite is one and the same person - let alone the same as Simon the father of Judas Iscariot.  I am able to infer the first connection but the second one - there is not even a scrap of data supporting - save and except perhaps they both have the same first name. 

Simon Peter is not Judas Iscariot's father.  Where you get these ideas is some kind of magic mushroom's fantasy la la land. 

There were two false witnesses. We both agree with that.  They weren't called disciples.  We can agree with that. They seemed to have heard some of Jesus' words. We can both agree with that. Those are the data and the facts that we can rely upon.  Their names were not mentioned. Or recorded. We both agree with that. The question then is did anyone apart from the disciples ever hear some of Jesus' words about the temple? And the answer is yes. There is a recorded discussion where Jesus talked about the temple being destroyed and others picking up stones to kill him or calling him mad or possessed by a spirit of demons. 

Rather than attempting to look within the circle of disciples, why not look around at those who had the most to gain by Jesus' death?  Judas of course did betray Jesus. But were there more than one? Not that the bible indicates.  But the Jews were plotting to kill him. The religious leaders wanted to get rid of him. These are the plain and obvious facts.  Occam's razor tells us the simplest explanation is often the correct one.  

You are simply casting spurious and unwarranted speculations and silliness into what is a clear story.  

The rest of your post is so full of holes it is difficult to know where to start. 

If you want to continue this discussion - clear up your mess and keep the posts shorter. 
#117
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
I have never really viewed the bible as a record of historical fact but like you say a compilation of stories but with anecdotal  wisdom to live by.  I have had many verses and chapters recited to me over the years and all without exception are pretty much applicable today when it comes to social do and don'ts, My opinion of course.
#118
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
jesus died for our sins. 
Orrrr
Jesus was killed for us, 
#119
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@sadolite
I agree.

#120
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
A Zedku for Deb.


Yep, so the story goes.

Killed then died,

Then revived.

Space people equipped,

With,

Adrenalin,

And a de-fib.

Beam him up Scotty.