where is it written?

[waitasec]

I know! How rude to call that woman a dog. Jesus!

the samaritan woman story
is a perfect example of using someones reputation to manipulate propaganda

 

[james2ko]

the fact is it isn't written anywhere. show me where this event was recorded in a non biblical text.

The fallacy is your claim it needs a non-biblical source to be valid.

nice try...no one can enter that room except for once a year..yom kippur

Sorry to rain on your fallacy parade my dear but the curtain divided the most Holy Place, which could only be entered once a year by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, with the Holy place or Hall, which was entered by the Priests daily.

 

[waitasec]

The fallacy is your claim it needs a non-biblical source to be valid.



Sorry to rain on your fallacy parade my dear but the curtain divided the most Holy Place, which could only be entered once a year by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, with the Holy place or Hall, which was entered by the Priests daily.

oops, try again.

The Holy of Holies was entered once a year by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, to sprinkle the blood of sacrificial animals (a bull offered as atonement for the Priest and his household, and a goat offered as atonement for the people) and offer incense upon the Ark of the Covenant and the mercy seat which sat on top of the ark in the First Temple (the Second Temple had no ark and the blood was sprinkled where the Ark would have been and the incense was left on the Foundation Stone). The animal was sacrificed on the Brazen Altar and the blood was carried into the most holy place. The golden censers were also found in the Most Holy Place.

Holy of Holies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How many roles did Y'Hushua occupy as a man?

One per idiosyncratic spelling?

 

[savagewind]

One per idiosyncratic spelling?

And how many would that be?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How many roles did Y'Hushua occupy as a man?

One per idiosyncratic spelling?

And how many would that be?

I honestly don't know. New ones crop up all the time. If backed into a corner I would probably opt for some standard transliteration of ...

and I dont see an 'H' or heh or ...

anywhere in the word. :no:

 

[EvolutionofThought]

I have an honest question.

I've read Jonah countless times, every year on Yom Kippur, and numerous times else besides.

WHY is a story that is rather specific (whether it is considered a parable or an actual story in and of itself) about Jonah, his prophecy, his temporary rebellion, his visitation in the belly of a big fish, his dissatisfaction with the lack of destruction of Nineveh, and God's rebuke of him... Supposed to represent ANYTHING about Jesus?

Jonah's temporary punishment - his imprisonment in the belly of a fish - is indeed three days. No question. It's there. But why is this supposed to be a hint of any sort about Jesus?

Yom Kippur. Jonah. He repented and did what God told him to do, almost despite himself.

And this has what to do with Jesus and his resurrection, if one believes in that type of thing?

I don't see the connection, besides the whole three days thing. And if that is the only real connection, it seems rather lame to me.

Unless someone has a better explanation? Help me out here.

ok... first, love this story... it is very cool...
haven't read it in a minute so short G-d tells him to go to a certain place right but no Jonah goes where the money is (or tries too). Then G-d causes a great big storm right and everyone is running around trying to figure out who has made their g-d mad... Jonah knows it was him so he hides (funny hiding from G-d...) So eventually everyone figures out it must be the guy hiding... (This next part, I am just going to assume) They throw him in the ocean.... and G-d puts him in a whale and makes him go where he was suppose to... is this literal... really asking. Or does it say a lot about everyone involved in this story....as far as the three days, I want to ask the whale...


Jen

( I will go read the story... I do love that story...

 

[james2ko]

oops, try again.

The Holy of Holies was entered once a year by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, to sprinkle the blood of sacrificial animals (a bull offered as atonement for the Priest and his household, and a goat offered as atonement for the people) and offer incense upon the Ark of the Covenant and the mercy seat which sat on top of the ark in the First Temple (the Second Temple had no ark and the blood was sprinkled where the Ark would have been and the incense was left on the Foundation Stone). The animal was sacrificed on the Brazen Altar and the blood was carried into the most holy place. The golden censers were also found in the Most Holy Place.

Some prefer to address the Holy of Holies as the Most Holy Place and the other side as the Holy Place. In spite of semantics, it still proves someone could have been in the vicinity when the curtain came down.

 

[waitasec]

The fallacy is your claim it needs a non-biblical source to be valid.

oh i'm sorry, i don't subscribe to circular logic...

of course, in order to validate my claims i have to make them, right?
got it.

Sorry to rain on your fallacy parade my dear but the curtain divided the most Holy Place, which could only be entered once a year by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, with the Holy place or Hall, which was entered by the Priests daily.

ok...still, there is no historical evidence of this ever happening.
the temple was burnt 30 plus yrs later and not one mention of it being torn from a non christian source...
but then again, i'm not one who's big on circular reasoning.

 

[Harmonious]

Some prefer to address the Holy of Holies as the Most Holy Place and the other side as the Holy Place. In spite of semantics, it still proves someone could have been in the vicinity when the curtain came down.

Impressive.

 

[james2ko]

oh i'm sorry, i don't subscribe to circular logic...but then again, i'm not one who's big on circular reasoning

1. Sure about that? One who presupposes the bible contains contradictions then argues that all proofs and explanations disproving their premise must be flawed because they believe the bible contradicts itself is one heavily engaged in circular logic, wouldn't you agree?

ok...still, there is no historical evidence of this ever happening. the temple was burnt 30 plus yrs later and not one mention of it being torn from a non christian source....

2. Would this reasoning have anything to do with point 1?

 

[Harmonious]

ok...still, there is no historical evidence of this ever happening.
the temple was burnt 30 plus yrs later and not one mention of it being torn from a non christian source...

This is true. Nicely done.

 

[waitasec]

1. Sure about that? One who presupposes the bible contains contradictions then argues that all proofs and explanations disproving their premise must be flawed because they believe the bible contradicts itself is one heavily engaged in circular logic, wouldn't you agree?

there is something you're not getting...you need to verify the "proofs".
in order to support a claim as absolute truth, it has to be verified from an outside source. just because the bible says anything doesn't make it absolutely true...what makes it true for you is your faith...and why would you need faith if outside sources confirm what the bible claims in the first place? you sort of make it seem as though faith isn't good enough. any out side source that would confirm the walking dead, the tearing of the curtain would support the bibles claim.

my goodness, if these things did occur, they would certainly be written down by a historian...there would have to be a social commentary of it written down somewhere because these are extraordinary events....

2. Would this reasoning have anything to do with point 1?

in terms of validating a claim i require an outside source...
got one?

 

[james2ko]

there is something you're not getting. in order to support a claim as absolute truth, it has to be verified from an outside source.

1. Says who????? Your argument from silence or sound logic?

you sort of make it seem as though faith isn't good enough.

2. We each embrace a different faith. Mine subscribes to the notion the bible is a true historical document. Yours does not.

just because the bible says anything doesn't make it absolutely true...what makes it true for you is your faith...

3. And just because something in the bible is not mentioned in secular literature doesn't make it false. This is flawed logic.

any out side source that would confirm the walking dead, the tearing of the curtain would support the bibles claim. my goodness, if these things did occur, they would certainly be written down by a historian...there would have to be a social commentary of it written down somewhere because these are extraordinary events....

4. You can't make this claim without taking into consideration the historical context of the time. First off, the curtain incident would have been of no significance for any non-Christian historian, of the time, to mention. Second, Josephus wasn't even born when the curtain event took place, so he obviously did not have first hand knowledge of it. Third, almost 40 years after the event, the Jews were crushed and the city, along with the temple and its records, were destroyed. By comparison, the curtain event would have been a distant memory and too insignificant to recall much less write about.

As far as the walking dead, in order for the event to be of any significance, they could only appear to those who knew and saw them prior to their death. Had they appeared or even testified to anyone who did not know them prior to their death, no one would have believe them much less write about it.

in terms of validating a claim i require an outside source...got one?

5. None needed, as this post illustrates. BTW. What does all this have to do with your OP? If you recall, your OP was refuted. As is usually the case, when refuted, you move the goal post and go off topic in a desperate attempt to validate your "faith".

 

[waitasec]

1. Says who????? Your argument from silence or sound logic?

explain to me how these claims are to be determined to be more than just a claim...

2. We each embrace a different faith. Mine subscribes to the notion the bible is a true historical document. Yours does not.

but you seem to be having difficulty understanding why i don't subscribe to just mere claims...which is your problem not mine...so why make it your problem i wonder...

3. And just because something in the bible is not mentioned in secular literature doesn't make it false. This is flawed logic.

it certainly is evidence for lack of support especially when you take into consideration what is being claimed has to do with people other than the jesus movement...there is no historical document claiming that the curtain ripped in two...and who would be the people to confirm such a thing...i would assume it would be the jews of the time...you got nothing nada zilch
and of course the extra ordinary claim that the dead rose from the dead
you got nothing nada zilch
and of course jesus appeared to the disciples and not to the unbelievers...excellent example of circular logic
but look, if that is the way you roll...cool....i don't.

4. You can't make this claim without taking into consideration the historical context of the time. First off, the curtain incident would have been of no significance for any non-Christian historian,of the time, to mention.

duh...it would have been significant to the jews of the day...but you still have nothing zilch nada

Second, Josephus wasn't even born when the curtain event took place, so he obviously did not have first hand knowledge of it.

i see so josephus is the only historian ever...got it.

Third, almost 40 years after the event, the Jews were crushed and the city, along with the temple and its records, were destroyed. By comparison, the curtain event would have been a distant memory and too insignificant to recall much less write about.

jesus had 3 yrs to change the world...supposedly, logic would stipulate that the jewish community would have said something about the curtain being torn sometime within those 40 yrs:areyoucra

As far as the walking dead, in order for the event to be of any significance, they could only appear to those who knew and saw them prior to their death. Had they appeared or even testified to anyone who did not know them prior to their death, no one would have believe them much less write about it.

and of course the only others that saw them were ...ahem...believers
got it.

BTW. What does all this have to do with your OP?

are these claims supported by non biblical historical accounts...:no:

even "jesus" got it wrong

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., Josephus wasn't even born when the curtain event took place, so he obviously did not have first hand knowledge of it.

It's always fun to see a fundamentalist selectively insist on first hand knowledge. :yes:

 

[Shermana]

I believe Jesus was referring to some type of text that the Qumran Nazarene community kept that the 'mainstream" Pharisees and Sadducees didn't have.

INTRIGUING DEAD SEA SCROLL SAYS MESSIAH TO COME, DIE, AND RISE ON THIRD DAY « Joel C. Rosenberg's Blog
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
http://www.bib-arch.org/news/dss-in-stone-news.asp

As well as his reference to "Moses spoke of me" being the Testament of Moses. I believe the NT refers quite a few times to works that the later Canonists removed but were widely circulated at the time. Enoch is the most glaring example, with Jude 1:14.

It is important to remember that Jesus was talking to his Nazarene disciples, not 5th century Orthodox Christians. The idea that they had the same exact canon back then is a great fallacy the Western Church needs to finally accept. This applies to the Masoretic text as well as the 4th century earliest known Septuagint as well.

 

[waitasec]

I believe Jesus was referring to some type of text that the Qumran Nazarene community kept that the 'mainstream" Pharisees and Sadducees didn't have.

INTRIGUING DEAD SEA SCROLL SAYS MESSIAH TO COME, DIE, AND RISE ON THIRD DAY « Joel C. Rosenberg's Blog

As well as his reference to "Moses spoke of me" being the Testament of Moses. I believe the NT refers quite a few times to works that the later Canonists removed but were widely circulated at the time. Enoch is the most glaring example, with Jude 1:14.

It is important to remember that Jesus was talking to his Nazarene disciples, not 5th century Orthodox Christians. The idea that they didn't have the same exact canon back then is a great fallacy the Western Church needs to finally accept.

oooh...:raises eyebrows:

interesting.

 

[james2ko]

explain to me how these claims are to be determined to be more than just a claim...

1. Sure. By avoiding the informal fallacy of arguing from silence and accepting the bible as a historically true document.

but you seem to be having difficulty understanding why i don't subscribe to just mere claims...which is your problem not mine...so why make it your problem i wonder...

2. And you seem to have difficulty understanding that accepting a claim from a document (the bible) that has been proven, time and time again, to be historically accurate and correct should be no problem at all.

it certainly is evidence for lack of support especially when you take into consideration what is being claimed has to do with people other than the jesus movement...there is no historical document claiming that the curtain ripped in two...and who would be the people to confirm such a thing...i would assume it would be the jews of the time...you got nothing nada zilch and of course the extra ordinary claim that the dead rose from the dead you got nothing nada zilch and of course jesus appeared to the disciples and not to the unbelievers...excellent example of circular logic ]/b]but look, if that is the way you roll...cool....i don't.

3. Is it anything like the circular logic in point 1 here?

duh...it would have been significant to the jews of the day...but you still have nothing zilch nada

4. Based on the historical context, there were much worse catastrophic events that rendered a curtain fall insignificant.

i see so josephus is the only historian ever...got it.

6. The only one that lived close enough to the event to hear about it from eyewitnesses. And he didn't for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post.

jesus had 3 yrs to change the world...supposedly, logic would stipulate that the jewish community would have said something about the curtain being torn :areyoucra

7. Not after their beloved city and temple were destroyed. The last thing on their mind would have been some curtain accident during an earthquake 40+ years before.

and of course the only others that saw them were ...ahem...believers,,got it.

8. Not really. Unless you're suggesting every friend, family, and acquaintance at their funeral were believers, which I find hard to believe. There's no need to continue discussing this off topic matter. I accomplished what I set out to do--refute your OP and present plausible arguments for the off topic curtain and resurrection incidents. Enjoy your weekend...

 

[waitasec]

1. Sure. By avoiding the informal fallacy of arguing from silence and accepting the bible as a historically true document.

the argument of no verification is a valid argument for me...:sorry1:
and in order for me to accept a claim is true is to verify it from more than one source...why do you have a problem with that...?
is it because you can't find a non biblical source to verify this extraordinary claim?

2. And you seem to have difficulty understanding that accepting a claim from a document (the bible) that has been proven, time and time again, to be historically accurate and correct should be no problem at all.

no it hasn't been proven...that is a fallacy.
a claim isn't proof you know.

3. Is it anything like the circular logic in point 1 here?

if that is the way you reason, fine for you, just don't expect me to.

4. Based on the historical context, there were much worse catastrophic events that rendered a curtain fall insignificant.

and??? the curtain tearing in two would be a very significant event...sorry to disappoint

6. The only one that lived close enough to the event to hear about it from eyewitnesses.

bzzzzt worng.... there was
quintus curtius rufus, tacitus and plutarch
try again.

And he didn't for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post.

sure, whatever makes you feel better.

7. Not after their beloved city and temple were destroyed. The last thing on their mind would have been some curtain accident during an earthquake 40+ years before.

so what? that would be a significant event regardless of how you don't want it to be with regards to the way the jews of the time felt about it.
you are reaching for straws...but that is to be expected...

8. Not really. Unless you're suggesting every friend, family, and acquaintance at their funeral were believers, which I find hard to believe.

regardless, if there was an event of a person raising from the dead who have been deceased for an amount of time that would require the living to be amazed at their resurrection, anyone who saw them whether it be a christian or not would make a note of it...it's not something one takes for granted...like the 3 hour eclipse, or the tearing of the curtain in the temple...
these things would be documented...
and all these things happened in one day...what an extraordinary day that was..yet...no non biblical source confirms these claims...and i have to accept it? why?
because it is written in the bible? :areyoucra
interesting logic you got there....

There's no need to continue discussing this off topic matter. I accomplished what I set out to do--refute your OP and present plausible arguments for the off topic curtain and resurrection incidents. Enjoy your weekend...

whatever makes you feel better...