Screwballs of the month

August 2005



Katrina never made it to where I was, thankfully, but some folks who seem to have had their intellect blown away by Category 5 winds did. And some really pounded the wall with their skulls hard enough to cause another natural disaster. Take this first bunch –


From the mailbag


This first guy could have been the source for a “you may be a fundy atheist” list himself.


If you want atheist, Christian man, get this:

It deals with right-wing politics too, so yeah, Christianity is well
covered, in particular covering the Christian bush administration.


I pointed out that I was not Catholic (as he said in another part of the message) and not right wing in my politics (but rather independent). No worries:


I know that you are not Catholic, but I see no real reason in making a
distinction between right-wing *political* motivations, i.e - religion. 
There is nothing more political than religion.

If you are keeping a score, I wouldn't advise it, the whole 'I believe
in an all powerful deity' is quite unconvincing.  I just loved the
'medication' bit.  I'm not the one believing in a 'god.'  I don't need
to make an argument against religion.  Every time a Christian
minister/Catholic priest/member of the KKK opens his (it usually is
'his' for you don't really believe in equality between men and women)
slightly podgy mouth, religion, once again tightens the noose around its
neck.  In my opinion, you should try and start young.  Get Christianity
into schools, it takes children to believe that sort of nonsense.  Oh
wait, you already do.  Shouldn't that be classed as some sort of abuse,
setting up schools that intend to create a new generation of young
Christian children?


Oh, and I shouldn't try to degrade atheists - - by pretending that they
have the sort of ignorance in their arguments that your average (no
wait, make that 'all') Christians seem to behold.

There is no such thing as a 'fundamentalist atheist' and the arguments
that are contained are utter bollocks, and are, almost ironically,
similar to examples of Christian ignorance, i.e - Evolution couldn't
have happened, because God made the world in 6 days, and rested on the
7th.  A slightly polarised example, but all the necessary elements for a
good example are there,lol.  Your entire belief structure is based upon
the belief in a god, why do you think you have any right to even attempt
to display any signs of logical thought.

The vast majority of intelligent people are atheists, by default.  Your
site angers me because it misrepresents atheists as some sort of 'weird'
idea, when actually it is the very lack of a 'weird' idea.

For example:
'You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief
in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a
meaningful distinction in real life.'

Considering that your entire belief is based upon words, this is
suprising.  I think atheists get a little annoyed at Christian attempts

to attempt to turn atheism into another religion, when it is the lack of
a religion.


Meanwhile more Christ-mythers came out of the hole, with a rash of excuses like this one. It was claimed I made a logical error in an appeal to certain evidence:

Observational selection - looking at one side of the coin.  One example from the prodigious pile (weak reference to "A word to the wise is often enough") should suffice.  You offer an inscription found in Caesarea Maritima as the sole reliable source of documentation that the Nazareth of "Jesus" was a real place.  Unless I am mistaken, even if the inscription actually documents what you claim, is doesn't prove allegorically that when one finds oneself in Paris one must therefore be in France or that one is in the city of birth of Bridgette Bardot


Wow. So there was more than one Nazareth in first century Judaea…speaking of the fundy atheist list, I got this whinge about it from the Head of Atheist Insecurity:
Don't you have something more important to do? Doesn't god, in all his
perfection need you to pray some more to it?

You must feel awfully special, you go to heaven, atheists go to hell,
you make fun of them, they burn. What a wonderfully loving religious


And in the “Let’s Raise the Bar to 10,000 Feet” Department:


You cannot teach what you do not know, regardless of what any book says including the bible! Has anyone died and come back to say if there is a hell or heaven! There is no proof of any belief! All we can do is gain as much knowledge as possible and draw the best guest! Nothing is guaranteed! Thank you for your time.


And of course, we can’t make it complete without one deluded Christian or two:


sorry, I read L. Ray Smith and I've read yours....and with rare exception he's right.  You're the ones trying to fit a round peg into a square hole to match scripture to your theorys.  Sorry, you don't convince at all.


Also from the Christian wing of the ward, this paranoid chap:


I do not have a problem with you taking money from those who willingly and cheerfully want to support you. However, I do not believe that any professing Christian of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ should take any 'handouts' from Caesar such as 501(c) (3). I was sent your website today and browsed. You subscribe to the tithe and I do not. I would not begrudge you your tithe if you can get it. But, tax exemption from an antichrist secular humanist government? No, that I always find to the height of 'Christian' hypocrisy.


And finally, a couple from the New Age wing of the institution, starting with this gem:


Breaking News


Be advised that the awaited Messiah and Divine Saviour and Just Leader of the whole of humanity has returned into the flesh of this world to restore the purity of faith, being the doctrine of PEACE of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and all of the heavenly revelations. Please advise all that his message from the Creator to humanity to prepare all for the coming TRIBULATIONS & utter destruction is now on line at:


< >

< >


After I told this squirrel to keep the acorns to himself, he replied:


every man has the right to find a REASON to 'ridicule' others, seeing not that they in fact ridicule themselves, for they (you) are no better than any 'prisoner' to this land. Yes son, every person on earth that has any sin within (negative emotions through which the dark operates) is such a 'slave,' and you are as much a 'knave' as any other.


My brother, why not try and 'better' yourself by doing a little reading of my web site. For I am the ONE with inner sight and it may not be as 'deep' or clear as that of God, but I do know when another such as you NEEDS help. Please do what you feel you need to in order to 'criticise or condemn' ME as a 'screwball' - - - but just remember, I have spent 12 years of my life sitting in the hills with my wife writing day and night to help you to SEE - - - before our God brings down the ULTIMATE and eternal CALAMITY upon those that find ANY reason to NOT go their way in peace and extend goodwill upon ALL -


Wow. I’d better repent.


Finally, the Uncritical Acharya S Stoolie of the Year wrote in with this:

I finally perused Higgins work after finding him quoted by many bible scholars both Christian and not.  It appears that Higgins did a monumental amount of research; so much so that he is a source of knowledge for both those who believe and those who don’t.  I have both a hard bound and paperback copy of Anacalypsis and I read from them sever times a week.   I disagree that he does not quote his sources.  If you read it with and unbiased approach, you will observe that he almost always quotes his sources.  

You are obviously a Christian devotee and as most, unable to think outside of that box.  Higgins may have made some errors but you Sir, believe in a bible that has not one signed or dated work.  You believe in a system that has a mutilated, bloody man hanging from a tree as a symbol, who’s body you symbolically eat and who’s blood you symbolically drink.  This God-Man, when humanity on earth is ended, will have about 98% of all people who ever lived being tormented in hell forever while a few of their friends and relatives are enjoying Paradise with this Butcher-God.  You believe in the Triumph of the Biblical Devil as the ultimate end of the Creators work on earth.  Higgins on his best day cannot match this!          

So I’ll continue reading Higgins for the 2nd time and delight in his pursuit of knowledge, history and truth.  You cannot do this because you are stuck with document that has no knowledge beyond that of the flat earth, Dark Age ignorance expounded on nearly every page.        

A guy named Bob E. gets one too, as he keeps writing me with stupid messages thinking he will disturb my faith, such as:

What a pity you were unable to attend this [JP]. I noted the attendance of other "credible" scholars. You could have provided comic relief and a dissertation on how chemicals cause strange thinking and behaviour. Apparently there are new openings for suicide bombers once Gaza become vacant. Just a thought. Another opportunity for notoriety and martyrdum.

Allah be praised,


Wow whatta lineup. A racist (J. Duncan M. Derrett), a crackpot psychologist (Elst), and Kenneth Humphreys of!                                                         

Golden duh award winners


Special lifetime Achievement award


One for Ed Babinski (Babaloo on Tweb) for cowardice, as well as the usual decontexualizations. Unable to face me on TWeb, he resorts to skulking around on his own website – and little wonder, with gems like this in his cap:

Other verses likewise depict both man and even God's enjoyment over revenge: “The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance, he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked” (Ps. 58:10) “The Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you” (Deut. 28:63)

I guess Edski gets his kicks reading ancient war monuments and overliteralizing them.

What's really weird about such verses is that another verse in the same Bible tells you NOT to "rejoice" when your enemy falls in battle: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles... If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink... He who rejoices at calamity shall not go unpunished.” (Proverbs 17:5; 24:17 & 25:21--Of course the "Proverbs" in the Bible consist of collected wise sayings, many of which might not be original to Israel, since scholars agree that parallels to such wise sayings have been found in collections of wisdom from neighboring cultures in Egypt or Babylonia.)

Edski is still a fundamentalist who has no conception of reading ancient war talk or proverbs as anything but literal instructions. And he's still plugging that idiotic "pagan parallel" argument as though it has any meaning (and which I have, again, addressed in articles, but don't tell him that).

In fact the Hebrew language is not filled with Egyptian loan words at all, just as one might expect if their ancestors ALL came over from Egypt after having remained there for four and a half centuries. Instead, the Hebrew language is merely a dialect of the same root language that the Canaanites spoke, Akkadian. (The Catholic Encyclopedia understates the obvious when it admits, "Notwithstanding the long sojourn in Egypt [sic], the number of Egyptian words that have found a place in the Hebrew vocabulary is exceedingly small.")

That wins gold by itself. Loanwords would come to exist in a language mainly because a culture has no word for a certain thing that another culture has. Egypt had little that the Hebrews would not have had a word for already. "Filled with" is a vague and unsubstantiated comment and shows that Edski is just running his mouth with no real grasp on what, quantitatively, we would expect in terms of loanwords.

Solid gold, baby.


And when you eat fish and chips, you think you see dagon


Stevie Carr gets one (and Richard Carrier shares it, for endorsing it) for this comment:


Ask 500 Catholics after Mass if they have received the real body and blood
of Jesus and they will say yes. Are they hallucinating? No. Does this mean a
non-Catholic would have seen the real body and blood of Jesus during Mass?
No. What people say they have seen is conditioned by what they want to say
they have seen. Talk of 'hallucinations' is beside the point."


Plus Stevie had this comment of late:


Some examples of geographical errors in Acts, contrary to Layman's claim that Luke gets geography correct.

Acts 1
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky?

Heaven is not in the sky.

Acts 7
55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Where was Stephen looking when he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God? Was he looking up to Heaven, as the Bible claims? How exactly do you look up to Heaven?

Did he die for an hallucination?


Oh yeah, Lucian must have meant that other jesus who was crucified in palestine and started a cult called “Christians”


A Christ-myther named Gladiatrix, from Christian Forums, could win gold for any of several comments, but this one takes the biscuit. Quotes are from my article on Lucian of Samasota.


7 ) LUCIAN , (175 CE), refers to "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world."

Yet another hearsay account, ~140 years after the alleged event. Note that Lucian does not name the "man" (could have been anyone). Here from JP Holding is what Lucien said (again to show just how VAGUE these alleged "references" are):


4) LUCIAN , (175 CE), refers to "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world."

Notice that Holding must admit that Jesus is NOT mentioned by Lucian. We are just supposed to assume (AGAIN) that Jesus existed because Christians existed. That is a really bad argument because what someone believes to be true is not evidence of anything except their belief. I can believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) exists, gain adherents, and found a religious institution, but that would in no way make the IPU a reality.

Again there is NO counter to be made against the fact that Lucian wrote this statement over 140 years after the alleged Jesus lived and died and there is no reference given for where Lucian got his information or to just what cult he is referring. Are we to assume that the only "cult" in Palestine was that of Christians? Remember that there was at least one other false Messiah executed (Theudas in 44 CE) and Lucian could just as easily have been referring to his "cult". There are no specifics given (name of cult, it's leader).


Trust us on evolution, too.

The TalkOrigins site wins one for a variety of comments in a section on inerrancy, from which we select highlights, starting with this exercise in circular reasoning:

Inerrancy cannot be trusted. Errors can only be corrected if they are first recognized and admitted. Inerrancy makes that impossible. Therefore, errors in an inerrant interpretation of the Bible can never be fixed.

Inerrancy is a contempt that breeds hate. Inerrantists take it as divinely certain that other people's religious views are inferior to their own.

One reaps what one sows, so when inerrantists show their contempt, contempt for their own religious views is returned. History is bloodied by the consequences. Jews, Muslems, heathens, and other Christians have been subjugated, tortured, and slaughtered in the name of the "true" god.

As the TWeb submitter of this said, “So we shouldn't believe in inerrancy since we might get tortured? And nothing like stereotyping your opponent instead of answering arguments.” It gets worse – paranoia and red herrings abound:

Inerrancy rejects much study of the Bible (not infrequently to the point of persecuting the studier).

Most inerrantists accept the King James version as authoritative, but analysis of the earliest biblical manuscripts shows that the King James version includes numerous errors.

Jesus himself said that religious laws are not absolute. In Matthew 5:38, he rejects the "eye for an eye" law (Exod. 21:23-25, Lev. 24:19-20, Deut. 19:21). Jesus rejected all dietary law (Mark 7:19; cf. Lev. 11). He rejected the commandment about working on the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). If Jesus considered that even the laws of Moses were not inerrant, why should we consider any part of the Bible inerrant?

The church cannot be an authority for inerrancy because there is no one church. There are over 10,000 different Christian denominations, all with different ideas about the Bible. In fact, there are at least three significantly different Bibles (the Catholic, Protestant, and Ethiopian Orthodox versions).

To claim that a particular interpretation of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.

Noah smoked crack

henry” from amuses us with these lines:

Winston why do you smoke cigarettes? You know that those things will kill you, yet you still insist on killing yourself, you really should quit smoking because you will be punished in a burning Hell that does not exist.

Winston you really have mental issues.
Winston you really need psychological help.
Winston did you know that cigarettes is a mind warping drug?


Winston did you know that the people that wrote the bible were on Opiates and Marijuana?

Winston did you know that the people that wrote the bible
suffered from Frontal Lobe Trauma?

Winston do not ask me to proove that you are an idiot, because you already have.

Farrell flies off the handle before he flushes

Gold for Farrell "Obsession" Till for a couple of items recently done, one where he  continues to insist that credentialed scholarship is wrong about guilt/shame and cites English translations to prove it, and another where he harps on a certain minor point about Bible restroom usage.


Witherington of the devil!

One “Danusha Goska” had some comments on Ben Witherington’s “Gospel Code” (a reply to The Da Vinci Code) on

Apparently, though, some fear that "The Da Vinci Code" is part of a vast conspiracy to wrest priestly power and prestige from whence it so rightly belongs - in the hands of heterosexual males. Ben Witherington III - could his name - as in "withering glance," multiplied by three - be more perfect? - is one of those very frightened heterosexual men.

I picked up Mr. Witherington-Three's "The Gospel Code" hoping for what the cover of the book seems to promise: a fun, pop theological investigation of "The Da Vinci Code"'s more outrageous plot points, including, perhaps, the loopy claim that Harvard has faculty devoted to "symbology." (Poor Harvard - yet another potential victim of the vast conspiracy by Da Vinci Code fans imagined by Mr. Witherington-Three - no doubt Harvard has been inundated by freshmen hoping to major in "symbology" as a way to meet cute French chicks.)

What I found between the covers of "The Gospel Code" was *not* fun. It wasn't theology, except in the scariest sense of that word, a sense best reserved for discussions of the Dark Ages and bloody religious strife. What "The Gospel Code" offers is a mean, misogynist, and inaccurate ride through one man's paranoia, arrogance and anger.

Finally, Witherington-Three's book is rife with the kind of simple errors that a copy editor should have picked up. I normally don't nitpick like this, but, c'mon, how do you get away with publishing a book that purports to correct others' errors while promulgating so many of your own? Gee - wasn't there a guy who once talked about the speck in your brother's eye v. the beam in your own?

Anyway, on page 16 there is an incorrect use of "who;" it should be "whom;" on page 21 there is an incorrect use of "less" where "fewer" is the required word; on page 24 Witherington-Three uses the almost unbelievably infelicitous "for he," which should be, of course, "for him." I could go on, but you get the point.

That’s it, now circe is really peeved

Julia Sweeney in a recent interview to promote her new book on Atheism:

San Francisco Chronicle

To me, the Iliad offers more insight into human character and lessons than the Bible. You know, like Jesus was angry a lot. When he turned all those people into pigs and made them run off a mountain, it was so hateful, not just to people but to pigs. I felt upset for the pigs!

The mojo jojo award

One Sharon Mooney, a friend of Ed Babinski, wins a Lifetime Award too for her recent discussion with me on rabbits “chewing the cud.” Other than using to define a Hebrew word, we have this sort of comment:

In case you missed it Dee Dee, scientists have repeatedly stated the rabbit does not "chew" on that pellet. That's all a cud is, is a wad of something chewed on --like chewing tobacco. The pellet is swallowed whole. Caecal pellets have nothing in common with "cud chewing". They're not chewed. If the rabbit set there and chewed and chewed and chewed on the pellet, it would be called cud chewing. But it does not do that.


Is that you, Mojo?




"Chewing is all cud is about. Because when cows chew the cud, it is the cud they are chewing. And chewing is all cud is about. Because when cows chew the cud, it is the cud they are chewing. And chewing is all cud is about. Because when cows chew the cud, it is the cud they are chewing..."


And also, for not being up to date on doctrine:


As soon as you guys choose that other word, Christians are going to know your true blasphemous nature... changing the King James Bible?? GO RIGHT AHEAD JP HOLDING. ARE YOU JP HOLDING, SAYING THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE?

And finally, for this travesty of lexical adventure, in which she tries to prove to me that the Hebrew word does mean “chew”:

But it does JP Holding, and you know that too, don't you?
"of them that chew" ([05927] `alah) -- "for they chew" ( [05927] `alah )

What she links to is essentially an INTERLINEAR that shows that "for they chew" is what translators have put for 'alah. When you click the Strong's number you find a list of meanings and "chew" is not one of them.

So Gold Screwball, and also a Sheila L. Ranglinsger Award to Sharon “Moonbeam” for not knowing the difference between a dictionary entry and an interlinear translation.


Silver duh award winners


slingshot” from  wins a “That’s Obvious” Award:


Those people over at Theologyweb argue a lot over correct interpretation of scripture-typically christian of them..

vinnie” on Christian Forums gets a Head in Sand Award for when a Christian said to him:

I mentioned these guys:

- Bruce Malina & Richard Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptics, and Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel on John.
- See also John Pilch, Jerome Neyrey, and David deSilva. The Context Group publications are listed here.
- Ben Witherington also has several socio-rhetorical commentaries which I'm sure have plenty of insight; that man is gigantic and I'm only holding off from reading him because of his size.
- For literary interest, see Richard Longenecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. I recommend hitting the social sciences first though.

And vinnie replied:

This is all poor scholarship and wishful thinking.

Redwolf979 wins the Misplaced Genre Award for:

There are loads of contradictions in the Bible so why do you say it's the word of God?

Bible is no different than Stephen King's "The Shining"..or Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings"...or Herbert's "Dune" series! I can derive as much "truth" from any of these because both cannot be demonstrated in reality. Your god is as unknown to you as The God Emperor of Dune is to me. Even worse because at least I get a description of The God Emperor when I read Dune. So why do you beleive that the bible is true?

Why do you believe in Magic?


Minnesota from TWeb wins the Critical Sourcework Award for drawing on as authoritative a work by one “L. D. Smythers” who didn’t even exist, among other problems – and then making excuses for it.


John D. Brey one TWeb wins the Take a Cold Shower and Fast Award for his sexual interpretation of the Ark of the Covenant, such as:


Ergo the golden chest is the holy scrotum of God containing His two testes, or testimonial stones. The wings of the cherubs on either side of the throne represent the penne, or pen-is, that will take the testimony in the stones and scribe them on the hearts of man:


Plus extra credit and a Sci Fi Scholarship Award for this theme:


Two things seem interesting and meaningful to me. ---- First, that for over three thousand years atheist Jews have been repressing their hatred for Moses so that this Jewish atheist Lucas comes along and makes this image of Moses as a Dark Levite High Priest who is satanic and who must be made to pay for being the Dark Father (Darth Vader) of the nation of Israel.

Secondly, I buy into Otto Weininger's assertion that "Jewish-ness" is as much a "type" as a religion, or a biological relationship. Weininger goes into detail cataloguing the "type" and gives good reason why most of the general population fit the type.

In my opinion, Star Wars (which I believe is a total flop from any objective criterion) was a box office smash because not only do ethnic Jews who are atheists hate and represss everything Moses stood for . . . but also . . . all those non-Jewish persons who fit the "type" have bells and whistles go off in their head when they see Darth Vader. They somehow instinctively see Darth Vader as a type of Moses and every other authoritarian leader and they love to hate him as Jewish atheists love to hate Moses. (And how much better if they can hate Moses in the guise of this Dark allegorical figure.)

DoubtingJohn wins the Pathological Literality Award for this commentary on Acts 17:

By the way, verse 21 has to be such an exaggeration that it's quite simply false, and hence a lie. "All the Athenians"...."spent their time doing nothing but talking..." What? They didn't work, or wash clothes, or cook? So we already know this report is a gross exaggeration by verse 21 alone. So we have to start asking what would the people in Athens and the men in the Areopagus say in response to this account.

On the side, “loogy” wrote this up for DJ and we append it to the Award:

Church of the Doubting John

The service goes something like this:

First we sing hymns about how we studied under William Lane Craig but we decided to go our own path. We carefully ignore any mention about how we often didn't bother going to class or even try to actually understand the subject materia. That would just get in the way of going our own ways, so what's the point.

Next with more upbeat and aggressive songs, we extol the stupidity and incompetence of JP Holding. If our spirits lead us, we might even mention how JP needs new socks and that his car is very uncool. This actually happens quite often.

We then open up the Book of Ancient Superstitions. Nothing quite warms up a soul like burning a strawman. The wafting smell is invigorating.

We close the service with a high. The whole congregation encourages each other on how we are the very smartest people and how anyone who believes in a deity is extremely stupid. Sometimes we even apologize to extremely stupid people for insulting them by comparing them to theists. We often get into this rousing call-and-response of "Who's the God?" I'm the God!". It can go on for several minutes.

We leave the service pumped up. We are ready to go out and tell everyone they are morons. Nothing feels better than feeling superior to everyone else.

Lazy Agnostic wins the Pathetic in Action Award for a thread in which he resuscitated his "live debate" thesis with skilled rationalizations, even after a sound beating in a poll showing the far majority of people prefer that I stick with written debate. Lazy Agnostic also wins a Poor Sportsmanship Award for the following:

Mad_gerbil: This comic killed me: stuff --

Lazy Agnostic: I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised by some real clever stuff. Can anyone explain why it's funny? Is it a wry parody, or what? It seems to be just lame insults and mischaracterization.

I'm sure it's heartening to know what he does with his time while his wife is out earning the bacon.

Oh well...also an obsession award for loitering on threads about me all month.

Jude3b wins the Hateful History in Action Award for these:

Its not talked about very much any more. They don't teach about it in the Public School systems and certainly Parochial schools won't say much about it, but there was a time when Roman Catholicism used terrorism and acted just like modern day Islamic terrorists.

You do not find any Christians in the Bible called Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, or Protestant.

Zipperhead wins multiple awards for various comments, such as starting a thread titled “Atheists Spread AIDS” in which he uses Fred Phelps as a source; plus these:

1Cr 14:34 LET YOUR WOMEN KEEP SILENCE IN THE CHURCHES: for IT IS NOT PERMITTED UNTO THEM TO SPEAK; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands AT HOME: for IT IS A SHAME FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH.

1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

1Cr 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

That means if you deny that "Let your women keep silence in the churches" and "for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" are "the commandments of the Lord" you "be ignorant!"

How then you gunna mangle those verses?


What does "free will" mean?

What IS a "free will?"

Where is a "free will"

What is a "free will"
made out of?

What's REALLY funny is what he says he gonna do when you answer him.

When you answer these questions, you'll be asked to explain what your answers mean, and then to explain what your explanations mean, and then to explain what the explanations of your explanations mean, and then to explain what the explanations of your explanations of your other explanations mean, and so on and so forth, etc. etc. etc.

I want to know how you define certain words you're going to be using, and I'm going to take certain words that you use in your definitions and ask what you're defining them to mean, and when you answer me, I'll most likely do it again with a word or two in the sentence you type as your answer, and I'll stop when come off to me as something other than a blithering lexiphanic retard.

Squaekybro wins the Finding Satan a New Job Award for this comment:

Grammer is something man put in. And apparently the devil had something to do with it.

Sonofyah gets a piece of it too, plus multiple awards for various comments:

Get a copy and read it. There is NO Jesus there. The "j" was not invented yet. The "J" was a mistake on the printing press. If you look at the Alphabet closely you will see it clearly that the "I,i" and the "J,j" look alike.....there is no other language besides the English that have a J sound within it. Satans best trick was not convincing the world he didn't exist it was changing the names of the father and the son. How can you rebuke him in the name of jesus. He will laugh at you. Recognize that Satan is the master of confusion not of mind control. The word says let this mind be in you that is also in Messiah. If you give ear to satan he will tell to tell me there is a differnt name in the Greek, Latin and Hebrew.

This is an imporant point:

Its funny how Satans name never changes from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. Its also funny how Adam is still Adam in the Hebrew and the Greek. Yerushalayim is still Yerushalayim. Moshe is still Moshe. Abraham is still Abraham.




To qoute me something out of a book used by the Catholic church is a little close minded when you know Catholic meaning "universal" embraces most religions and beliefs. With that being said they have to first find out which god they want serve today.


The english language is the chosen language for America. This type of speaking is only five hundred years old. A hybrid language that embraces other languages such as, arabic, latin, greek and the list goes on and on. The english or anglosized way of speaking lacks originality. Yet you feel that its "normal" to speak and spell correctly. I'm sorry for misspelling words when I am typing. The fact remains that the word was getting across to people. Don't allow yourself to be used by Satan.


We get away from being Set-Apart in the presents of YHWH and try to prove that he exist. Solomon prayed for Wisdom but he also wanted the wisdom of the darkside. This is very dangerous. We should just cry out for revelation knowledge and understanding of the deep things of YHWH Elohim.


I award the Displaced Twin Sisters Award to Goliath and Crusader. The latter began to psychoanalyze people’s avatars, and being that I had one of my anthropomorphs up as one, I asked her if it meant I was into bestiality. She replied:

Furthermore, your sexual references are vulgar, and have no place on a Christian website. I shall report them forthwith.


Make sure you report the Song of Solomon and Ezekiel 23:20 while you're at it. Crusader also showed us why apologetics needed an overhaul with comments like these:

Gee, thanks for the geography lesson. Of course, I'm pretty familiar with Florida, home to a lot of off-the-wall Anglo Catholics attempting to drag ECUSA to the Vatican. Know any?

Goliath wins for comments like these from the Hayseed Collection:

 And as far as how "personable" he is, of course, you never challenge him! Only Crusader and I have done that. Nor does anyone ever seem to challenge the mormons except for-again-Crusader and me-and the aforementioned Jude3b and Deren and Confuzzled. So, yeah, if you want everyone to "get along" then of course, don't bring up the fact that they believe false religions and are going to hell because they don't know the Lord, just have nice chats on line with them-and be sure to use lots of big words. It's uncomfortable to really defend our faith, isn't it? People might not like us. Further, I was under the obviously mistaken impression that this was a Christian website, but it now appears to me that this site is slowly being taken over by Satan to use as a tool for leading people astray. If you want to kick me off the site for being blunt, then do so. I no longer care. Goliath


Johnny Skeptic is banned now form TWeb, but gets the I Can’t Win There So I’ll Boast Here Award for this from IIDB:

I hereby offer James Holding $1,000 to debate the Tyre prophecy with me in a formal debate at this forum. I am sure that someone will tell him about my offer, and I am also sure that he will decline my offer because I have already embarrassed him on that topic at the Theology Web.

James Holding wouldn't be caught dead at this forum. He wouldn't be able to call anyone any names, he would have less help from his buddies from the Theology Web, and most of all there are a good number of scholarly skeptics here who he is afraid of.

We lost Johnny at TWeb, but fear not, Bagger Vance has come to take his place with multiple-awarded comments and actions, such as being asked for a reference to a lexicon and giving a link to Some more comments:

Who knows when they were written. We certainly don't know with any degree of certainty. I am not saying concretely either way when the epistles were written but it it seems to me that they would have come after the Edict of Milan only because there wasn't any pesky persecution to dodge.


For objective morality to exist time frame, legality, popularlity of an action is irrelevant. That is to say that the morality of any action is independent of what the current law says or popular opinion. It is upon that basis that the Pro-Life movement can say that abortion is wrong even if it is legal. To argue that stoning a child is morally right because it is in a certain society is either true or false. It matters not at all that this was said in the 15th Century BC or that the theocracy in power said it was right. If morals exist objective of those things then the action is either right or wrong.

What happens is that Christians twist it so that morality is whatever God says at the given moment. God can say thou shalt not kill and then slaughter the first born of egypt or tell Moses that he and the israelites should kill all the men and enslave the women of another society. How can he do this? Because morality isn't objective to the Christian it is subjective to God's commandment at any given time. Morality is what God says it is. If God says kill or enslave then those things are right because God is morality. Whatever he says goes. It is just a different twist on moral relativism.


The context of stoning children? I asked you if you would want to live in the world set up by the perfect law giver. I guess context is all you can provide for a book that has some very disturbing aspects especially in the Old Testament. Would you want to live in the theocracy system presented in the Old Testament? It makes the Taliban seem reasonable.


don't have to try and argue if the people in ANE could understand that what they were doing was wrong. Why? Because supposedly your omniscient God was there writing these laws for them. Isn't that your argument? That this is God's perfect will? If it is indeed God that wrote those laws then you would have to argue that God was bound in that time but I thought God was out of space/time? If God is out of space/time why was he writing laws bound to the barbarism of the ANE? Could it be that you acknowledge that he didn't write those laws? Could it be that it was the Israelites that wrote them and attributed them to God? If so I understand your argument. If it was the Israelites who were bound to their time and situation then the law can at least be understood. If God however wrote them or inspired them then they can not be understood because God would not be bound to the timeframe. God wouldn't have limited knowledge you see.


Also, Bagger Vance responds to my explanation of what the Hebrew word for "kill" means in "thou shalt not kill":

The most interesting thing about this is that you offer not one New Testament quote to back up your capital punishment case. Not one. It is almost like they are two different books isn't it?


Um – I didn’t use the NT to define a Hebrew word. Natch.


Danhalen gets the Forget the Kalam Award:

Would you believe me if I told you I was perfect? Would you believe me if I told you I created the universe? Would you believe me if I told you that you can never attain perfection as I am? If your answer is "no" to any or all of these questions, then why should I trust you when you tell me about God?

Sol Invitcus wins the What You Talkin’ Bout Willis? Award:

Christianity states that man is but a sinner, who can't do anything to please God. Nothing whatsoever. Paul left little to the imagination as far as that idea is concerned.

Along come the Christians, who go on to try to first of all claim that there is no spiritual side to human beings. Then they go on to try to get themselves 'saved' by trying to 'change' themselves in a way that they think pleases God.. that is their carnal selves, which Paul explicitly claims to be of no value to God at all.

MaryBurwell earns herself the Crystal-Totin’ Christian Award for this prose:

I believe in the Bible and in God because I like Him. I like the Bible. It is fun. I don't see how any other "religion" or antireligion could be as much fun as faith in the God of the Bible and in His Son Jesus Christ. I mean, my religion is a relationship. There is nothing to lose in becoming a Christian, only things to gain. it's not about being a Christian or being religious or moral, it is about KNOWING GOD. It is about knowing my Heavenly Father and my Creator and Him knowing me. It is about intimacy on a completely spiritual level that exhilarates my whole being and fills me with live and God himself. It is an incredible thing to fall in love with God and learn to trust Him and open up to Him about everything and give up to Him and let Him shape me through His word. He is incredible and makes me SO happy.

Numberprophet earns the Convenience Store Award for:

The bible tells us that Jesus suffered, quite extensively, and died so our sins could be forgiven. It also says that Jesus was the son of God etc...


If God is omnipotent why must he doom his only son to such a horrid fate?
Doesn't the necessity of Jesus' sacrifice imply that there is a law above God, forcing him to put up his son for the rest of us?

Why can't God just forgive us and leave it at that?

Why the theatrics?

Rationalist gets the Outrage Award for:

Right now abortion is objectively moral. The context of this time demands that women not bear children who - because they are unwanted - could fall and become lucifer's tools, or even the anti-christ himself.

Also, murder of muslim women and children is presently moral. The triumph of Christianity is threatened by the increase in population amongst muslims. Therefore it is moral to exterminate them.

You have to understand the social context at the time, and what is at stake. Anything at all is moral as long as you can imagine a contextual justification for it which involves furthering the cause of God.

We poor atheist moral relativists have to stick to our conscience and empathy for the pain and suffering of our fellow human beings. We don't have the luxury of putting words in God's mouth.

Constantine earns the Misplaced Exegesis Award for:

I am reminded of story in the New Testament

Jesus told us that the first person to throw a stone at Mary Magdelan should be the one without sin. That day He saved a guilty women from being stoned to death because He thought that it was much better for her to change her life than for the ravenous and hypocritical crowd to end her life. Would it not be better to show the child why disrespect is wrong rather than showing the town his insides?

AutoMaton gets himself a Spread the Stupidity Award because he started with this as an OP:

1.) There is no proof that God exists...

2.) There is no proof that Jesus ever existed...

3.) The whole of Christianity is based on a work of fiction, and personal recollection as its primary foundations...

4.) Religious people are addicted to faith and belief in the supernatural...

Just to clarify what relevance that fourth point makes, when you are addicted to something, you generally defend it and everything it has to do with visciously...without anything substantial to backup your reasoning.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That’s bad enough, but after he did this the stupidity spread to the other atheists. Jimbo (Brooks Trubee) proceeded in the same thread to win his own Screwball for this comment in reply to Tacitus' reference to Jesus:

Sorry, but this does not prove that the supernatural Jesus character portrayed in the Bible actually existed. It only proves that a guy named Tacitus wrote a blurb about Christians and the Christian religion around 117. What is interesting is that there are no contemporary reports or writings about the life or the ministry of Jesus. It would seem that no one knew Jesus existed when he supposedly existed. Very curious.


And then rthearle won one too with this comment:

Can you show me a 19th century source where the existence of the Scarlet Pimpernel is denied?

Then, Whoweepsforkirk  (“He lost his toupee in all the ruckus") said for an award:


although i am new to this particular thread, it seems to me i am seeing more of the same christian tactics.

first, reference other christians sources, which are biased.

second, dismiss those sources not christian as having an anti-christian agenda.

third, take flimsy and questionable evidence, and, using another christian source, present it as hard evidence.

fourth, dismiss counter-points by categorizing their sources as unreputable.

fifth, ignore evidence which exists but does not support your opinion.

from a purely objective point of view, this type of truth twisting is very evident.

was there a historical jesus? it is probably impossible to say either way for sure. but christians have a tendency to warp the facts in order to show that it is and has already been proven as fact.

in fact a survey of non-biased historians finds that the answer is: maybe.

the existence of their religion is proof, they say. well, then buddha and krishna and rama must also have definitely existed.

i am all for debate and research into the subject of whether there was a real man named jesus, but i abhor the rather underhanded tactics i see being used here by the christia



frivolimous wins the Lost in Time Award for:

Nay, I'm afraid it is you who is mistaken. Catholicism was around long before Christ came and when he did and the Catholics saw the christian rise in popularity - they simply added Christ to their pantheon. I can't prove this fact, of course, as it has been buried in history... but it has long been believed not only by me but other theological historians.


Bronze duh award winners


And here’s a closing collection of miscellany.


one love” from Christian Forums:


Dude, the claim that Gospels as historical references should have been shot down by now. The people who wrote them did not state this was a historical text and did not date them. If you want to use one religous scripture why not another? Say the Hindu Vedic scriptures written 2000 years before Genesis?


rileyj from


Science has proven that hell is not in the core of the earth as christains claimed for centuries. They switched to call it a spiritual place.


DaBlonde” from TWeb:


The best way to advance Christianity is to advance liberalism since they are virtually the same thing.

So does this make Conservatives Satanists?


eliyosef” on TWeb wins for actually arguing in favor of the Christ myth – he knows better – and especially for arguing first that the Tanakh exposes Jesus, and then arguing that it doesn’t mention him.


apple” on TWeb wins a Lifetime Achievement Award for this effort to justify abortion from the Bible:


As for children being a survival tool I'm sure pregnancy threatened the survival of prostitutes and we all know prostitution is the oldest profession. Do you think a pregnant prostitute did good business? Concerning a prostitute, carrying a fetus would be like hitting oneself on the head.


If child sacrifice was being practiced do you think abortion wasn't?


Golly -- how are they GOING TO perform child sacrifice if they're performing abortions?


Here are some names and statements that get Bronze:


I think it's an insult to God to say that the Bible is "his Word".
Is that really the best He could do?
Does He care so little about us that all He gives us is a collection of old texts that are often quite difficult to understand and were very poorly distributed to the people of the world?



My thinking has always been, if God is "all That", why didnt he make the bible, or a different media so dang CLEAR no one would ever question it. If God is really the maker of EVERYTHING, why did he need man to write down his words for him? Couldnt he do it himself? I know if i want something done right, i had better do it myself, you would think he would know that too.




Actually if you want to get technical in the Orginal Hebrew Bibles it never said Jesus was hung on a Cross. It said he was Hung on a TORTURE STEAK or in other words a lim from a TREE. Never Cross, that never came in existence untill the Catholic religion added it in their own words basically they made the whole Cross thing up, and that right their misguided many people. Also it is known even in Encyclopedias (correct my spelling) even stated that the Catholic Religion took out many words of the Bible and added their own.

For one the Torture Steak was turned into CROSS. Second Gods Name in Hebrew and even Jewish bibles was JEHOVAH. Once again the Catholics turned that name into Lord or exchanged it with God. Gods name was really Yeh Weh(cant spell) but translated in english Jehovah. To me the people that made those books were just people to throw people off once again in religion. Anyways good topic!




there are several "what ifs" to add to this. What if, he was drugged to appear
dead to hasten his removal from the cross (granted that was nt a regular practice but Pilate seems tohave been open to monetary persuasion).

What if arrangements had been made for a healer to be waiting inside for him?

What if as do many holes in the groun this particular one (maybe selected for this reason) had a "back door."

what if the events talkied of took place not outside Jerusalem but outside
There was a "tomb" located adjcent to a burial ground (place of the skull) that fits this scenario




I'd like to alert all christians to be aware of some of the ways 
that demons get into the home. One way is through worldly music, 
especially music the degrades women and is degrading in general. 
All forms of porn,and sexual perversion. Horoscopes,and fortune 
telling,superstitions,and drug abuse. Bad movies,foul language,and 
authorities of the home who may be friends with individuals who do 
such things,or authorities of the home who do them. 
The authority of the home is usually the male who pays the bills,but it 
can be the woman who is paying the bills and taking care of the home 
if she is single,ect..... 
If the Authority figure is a true
 christian then most likely the demons and 
spirits will be easier to rid your home of by casting them out. And you may 
call them by name,like the spirit of mocking,rage,filthy language,hate,and 
so forth. 
Sometimes the authority in the home doesn't even realize that he or she 
has given these demons their authority as in the cases where their own 
children are doing things in the home that they are not aware of,yet they 
are not investigating suspicious behaviors in their children,ect.... 
Also,do your best not to fear demons and evil spirits. The first time one 
yells at you can be a fright at first,but you will gain more power through 
prayer and determination in your walk with Christ Jesus. God has given 
us authority to trample on them,amen & amen.


Make note that this thread is not about what everyone else wants to yap about, but the topic is very specifically PARTIAL RAPTURE.

Can we please discuss the topic rather than give into peoples' flesh?

Isn't it amazing how the flesh tries to exert itself in a heartbeat.

This is how Satan tries to deflect and misdirect the word of God, and words that agree with God's word.

Looking forward to when someone is interested in discussing the topic itself.



Captain Sanity


Here look.

The common ancestor of humans and was an ape.



Manuscripts are not accepted as fact, because, like your previous post, they are assertions until proven correct. Just because something is written about something, doesn't make it true. This is a rule of thumb in archaeology.





After posting Kersey Graves’ “crucified saviors” list, says:


... usually the 'recognized' academic authoritys are some of the most biased and ignorant people around... and this has been written about by many people... higgens.. massey and kuhn did some fascinating and very relevant work.. which is just now begining to be seriously looked at.. as we emerge from the religious and scientific bias that has plagued modern research for some time




Hello StudyHound
What do you study? Yeah, i dont know labels. Im sorry. What would ya like to talk about? Ive heard ya cant teach OLD DODS new tricks. You old studyhound? Ya ready to learn what the bible really says fido? Wanna play old boy?


Well, seems everyone wants to get on me cause i dont know what futurism is. But....Ill focos on the hound dog.




The Bible, despite so many discrepancies and contradictions in it, is a work of humans who have witnessed extraordinary events and who tried their best to leave a record for later generations. We must believe those people, unless we can prove them wrong, and the best way to understand the Bible is by reading and understanding "The Urantia Book". The Urantia Book is the Bible enhanced 1000 times' and by combining the two anyone can tell, fairly soon, wheather or not any other "religious or spiritual" book is true or false. While I haven't read "The Course in Miracles", I can tell you that "Conversations with God " books are a fraud.




In my opinion you are heading in the right direction, but you still have some Roman doctrine you need to scrape off...LOL
It is also my opinion that what we know as "the church" today, is not the apostolic church, but is a "paganized" religion, which was strategicly designed, for political purposes, by bishops of the universal religion of the Roman empire.
The true Christian church(messianic assembly) began in the 6th century BC when a Jewish prophet in Babylon, proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom...that a messiah would come and receive the kingdom of his father David.
That Christian church almost died out after the Babylonian captivity when the Jews returned to Judea. It enjoyed a short resurgence because of the teaching of John the baptist and Jesus, before it went underground. Constantine, the emperor of Rome, revived the name "Christianity", and applied it to a new religion called "The Universal Assembly", because it contained doctrines from every religion of the empire, and was legislated to be taught by all religious leaders in the empire. The universal religion is still alive and well today, in the doctrines of the RCC and her Protestant daughters but, if a remnant of the "true" church still survives today, I have no idea where to find it...LOL





Jesus was considered a human sacrifice was he not? Sacrificing himself for the sins of man? Why would a Gos [sic] who abhors human sacrifice do such a thing?




You're angry and frustrated . Perhaps because deep down you realize I'm correctly expounding the Gospel Message and you're not.

Basically you go wrong when you say God is a "trinity".


The Seeker

Thread title: Was the Bible intended as a literal, historical account?

I was just thinking about this last night. To be honest, I can't see how the books of the bible can be thought of as anything but literal, what would be the point in the geneologies otherwise?






DMC: Was slavery fair or unfair? What about in the days of Jesus?

Me: Do you assume that it did not change any since then?

DMC: Irrelevent. Fair or unfair?


DMC: The only think I call Christians wrong about in this discussion is their contention that morality is absolute.

Me: Again: saying that there are no absolutes is an absolute statement in and of itself. It is a self-contradiction.

DMC: Strawman. I did not say there are no absolutes, only that morality isn't an absolute.


Me: All people have two ethical options: one, which says that there are no binding moral absolutes--which is itself bound on all peoples and times, therefore making it a self-contradiction, that requires belief in God.

DMC: It amounts to a play on words.




DMC: I didn't say "Christianity" and you aren't funneling me there. I said "bible".



Has anyone read the history of contantine. He was a murderer, a thief, and he converted people to the roman cathlic church by force. The cathlic religion spread all over Europe by the sword. They spread into south america and left a trail of bodies. The protestants who came from the cathlics are no better, as they murdered 100s of thousands in north america.

Is this what jesus would do? Are these the ways of christ? No they arent.

I dont trust any religions who have such corrupt foundations. I conclude that none of the christian religions today are of christ. Thier foundations are built on that which is in cotradiction to christ's teachings.


I have read the bible twice. I am going for a third go at it. And I do follow my understanting of it. All I am saying is that there is not a church out there that follows it's teachings. Not a one. They are all wrong. I do believe the bible is true, but there has got to be one sound minded church out of the hundreds that follow the teachings of the bible. They all have different teachings. How can this be? God does not like disorder in his house. It either means one thing or another not a 100 different things. All preachers are false prophets. And all of them are wrong.



However,The supposed "prince of peace" Jesus did say "do not think I have come to bring peace on earth, but a sword. For I have come to cause division{wich naturlaly leads to strife,prejudice,perseution,war and death}".
He also commande dhis followers in Matthew 5 to obey the jot and tittle of the law{the letter of the law, despite the modern evangelical catchphrase "spirit of law, not letter"}-and that law contains some pretty brutal and cruel stuff, and historically Christians have done a good job of obeying them, in other words all the cruelty done by christians in history is the nature of the God Jesus claimed to be the son of,Yahweh/Jehovah, as evidenced by his own commands.

However, then they should be called "Jehovians, or Yahwehans" not "Christians", because for all his inconsistency and hypocrisy, Jesus of Nazareth does seem to have probably been a rather fair fellow and radical, Christians in history and today{the majority, not neccaserily "all", liberal Christians seem to live like Jesus a bit more} are not his followers mostly.

Allthough, perhaps they are of Christ then if they are inconsistent and hypocritical, because that is how Jesus was.




In reply to:


Did you ride the short bus into this thread? Let's recap:

Salvationfound said:

According to who? If I say stoning a child to death is not barbaric and yousay otherwise why is your interpretation of what is barbaric more valuable than mine? Cause your not a Christian?

He is asking you to tell him why your interpretation of what is barbaric is more valuable than his. Nowhere is the context of "western society" invoked.



Right, until I invoked it. Which you WON'T accept, for reasons that are known only to you. But I did mean it in that context, whether you're stuck in denial about it or not.


Gospel Minister

11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Do you understand how serious this type of sin is? This woman ACCIDENTLY touched another man's PRIVATE PARTS while attempting to get her husband away from him in a fight. The word of God says to CUT OFF HER HAND, and NOT TO PITY HER.



what the post modern "church" wants it gets from the growing cadre of weak and effeminate men posing as ministers of the Gospel.


I concur, the admendment allowing women to vote in our Democratic Republic has divided the authority of a man (husband) but it has also INCREASED the impact of human depravity. Where once we had only the male side of evil to contend with in the senate and house, we now have compounded that evil by allowing the female gender a voice in national affairs, this is a great evil and a detriment to the political health of the republic altho one voicing that view will be shouted down by the feminists and even many men who are responsible for abdicating their God ordained role as leader and protector. Now the die is cast and only history will speak to the mistake of permitting women the vote in our nation.




I would hope there is little dispute over the fact that lots of Jews named Yeshua "existed" during the first century.

So what? Perhaps there were also some ancient Greeks named Hercules and Achilles? Again, so what?

At best the Tacitus material shows that the historian believed that someone he called ‘Christus’ (not Yeshua), had been executed by someone named Pilate ( a name that would not have been known to his readers). At best, this belief probably came from his interaction with Christians who told him this, and/or reading their early literature.

At worst, the whole passage is a much later, forged Christian interpolation. And its veracity has been challenged by many historical scholars.

Again, neither Christians, nor anyone named “Yeshua” were of much interest to Tacitus or his Roman audience in general in the year 117. Alas, he’s probably burning in hell for that that foolish oversight…

Where you constantly get into trouble JP, is when you try to compare and equate Tacitus brief quip about Jesus, to the much more extensive material he wrote about the Roman Empire and Caesar. Sorry, but the quantity, quality and sources for those subjects should not even be mentioned in the same breath. But with so little extra-canonical references to prove the historicity of the gospel events, I can see why you constantly resort to this transparent and ignorant equivocation in the Tacitus material.

So lets all agree that someone named Yeshua lived in the ANE in the first century...big deal...


GreatWhiteHype2 on my style.

You remind me of another brilliant Christian, John Howard Yoder, who decided the ethic he argued wasn't important enough to apply to himself, so he started having sex with undergrad students at Notre Dame.


Finally, Incrus claims that both thiefs REVILED Jesus and neither repented. He says that the thief that was asking Jesus to remember him was actually 'reviling' him, and that when Jesus said that he would be with him in paradise, he was not giving him salvation but that 'paradise' meant death and that the thief would be dead with Jesus that day.