Why was Jesus executed? It doesn't make sense !

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Ted Grant II, May 17, 2017.

  1. birch Valued Senior Member

    christ is a metaphor for those who have fought the good fight and lived with ethical principles, had to pay the price with their lives even. all the people in the past and pesent fighting the good fight for the right reasons and their sacrifice. they may not be the ones who enjoy the fruits of that outcome just as the ones today but future generations may benefit.

    the ones who fought against slavery, any race/creed, the ones who fought against injustice, the ones who fought for freedom, the soldiers who sacrifice their lives for our safety, the ones who dared said the truth the earth is not the center of the solar system and were burned at the stake etc. it's impossible to list them all because some you will never know about, from the small to the large, and some famous/notable. these same struggles are happening today. different time but same struggle. that struggle to improve and enlighten. this is in all areas of life/experience.

    of course, because this is no fairy tale, there are those fighting against what is right, and they can also prevail. but overall, that's what jesus christ is iconic for, even against the odds to not sell out your principles or what you know to be right, whether it makes you unpopular or oppressed. that whole 'wide is the road that leads to destruction' is also a metaphor of how often evil is so overwhelming, that the struggle/fight is hard and realistically some will or cannot make it.

    it's about being aware and honoring that. as people are inspired and whatever values they agree wtih, that baton gets passed on. life is hard and people have their particular areas of struggle but you can remember there were and are people who are also struggling and fighting the good fight too, who have gone through the same/similar and whether you ever will know them or not or whether they are passed on to history, which is not the point anyways. it may all be a dead-end road at the end as everything dies but just the same, it's about living with truth and integrity just the same, even if others don't.

    the problem with the religion as with anything, of course, is you will always have dishonest people represent it or use it for twisted, selfish or ignorant purposes. so it has to be re-examined and those who represent it and why.
    Last edited: May 20, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ted Grant II Registered Senior Member

    The visible universe contains about 170 billion galaxies, according to the BBC Horizon programme I watched recently.
    Oh ye of little faith.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Chado2423 Registered Member

    This is a common fallacy. You erroneously equate foreknowledge of the ultimate transforming redemption with the causation of the crucifixion. Yes, God foreknew the ultimate transformation from the ACTUAL event itself (He is a TRUE GOD, in EVERY sense of the term, after all!)

    Yet, in truth, foreknowledge of a event does not mean that God orchestrated the outcome, you make yourself into a fool (may God have mercy on your soul!)

    First let's discuss Foreknowledge of the event. It is undeniable that Jesus was aware of the events that would transpire:

    1. Jesus prophesied His death!

    "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” [Mark 8:31-38 New International Version (NIV)]

    (First point: Here Jesus says: "the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders the chief priests and the teachers of the law..." Friend, my question here is does "must suffer" necessitate that the suffering be caused by logical expression from either Jesus or even God? No. Here if you read that the suffering is definitively caused by anyone in particular then you are guilty of interpolation. This only says that the suffering itself is necessitated, but it does not says by who's hands the suffering will transpire!)

    (Second point: Next, Jesus says: "and that he must be killed and after three days rise again..." Again, we see that the death itself is necessitated, but yet in like manner to what I mentioned above to say exactly who is killing Jesus (p.s. Biblically as Jesus was placed on the cross by the Romans, it stands to reason that Jesus was killed by Roman soldiers!) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 19) Here, if you state that Jesus was killed by anyone other than Roman soldiers, you ignore the obvious and reasonable literary cause of death!

    2. Jesus prophesied His resurrection!

    "From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised." [Matthew 16:21 English Standard Version (ESV)]

    Now here, where do you see that the one who is
    causing the suffering is either Jesus or God the Father? Answer me! ANSWER ME! EMAIL ME at chadfisher2423@gmail.com. because I would really like to know!

    So, yes, Jesus had the understanding and foreknowledge of the event. However, as I noted, foreknowledge of an event does not mean that the one who can predict that event is the one who is orchestrating it!

    3. Satan was instrumental in orchestrating and establishing the steps to place Jesus on that so termed "cursed tree." (Need I need mention that Jesus also prophesied of His betrayal? It is illogical to say that Jesus betrayed Himslef, right, but you make this same argument with the crucifion, you know? Simply put, you are guilty of equating foreknowledge with the agent of cause, on ALL accounts! Jesus knew that He would be betrayed, but JUDAS was the agent of cause of the betrayal under the influence of Satan, you see?)

    To start, Satan was integral in the betrayal. We see this most clearly in the example of Judas the Iscariot: (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 26:14-27)

    Luke 6:16 says Judas “became a traitor,” denoting a double-crosser, or betrayer. The New Testament uses the term “traitor” of Judas and of evil people in the End Times (2 Timothy 3:4). The term “to betray” (prodivdwmi) literally means “to give over,” and the New Testament uses it several ways including “to deliver over treacherously by way of betrayal” (Matthew 17:22; 26:16; John 6:64). The noun form, prodovth”, deriving from prodivdwmi, “to betray,” does not occur in the New Testament, and speaks of one who delivers a person without justification into the control of another.
    Jesus knew that ultimately His battle was with the evil one. On an occasion well before His final trip to Jerusalem, He implied that the devil would be involved.

    Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil (ei|” diavbolo” ejstin)?” He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve (John 6:67-71).

    When Jesus says, “one of you is a devil,” it reveals His omniscience (cp. 1:47; 2:24-25; 6:15, 61). He knew that the devil would possess Judas and use the traitor as a puppet to accomplish satanic objectives.

    With a little bit of intelligent reading you can understand that Jesus' whereabouts to his captors (or Biblically "cohorts") was revealed by Judas, still under the influence of Satan.

    So, friend, listen, you are clearly interpolating your interpretation into the text material. You are misguided in your application of equivocation of foreknowledge with the agent of cause. Satan used Judas to betray Jesus, to get Jesus arrested. Satan used the hands of unaware Roman soldiers to hang Jesus on the cross. Just like God can use people for His aims, so too does Satan orchestrate his aims through people as well. Here, the crucifixion was espoused by the will of Satan, NOT God! The part Satan probably did not know or if he did, did not want to admit was the subsequent resurrection!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    You seem rather confident in your opinions and have what seems a fair understanding of the New Testament.

    The question on my mind is how could we rely upon anything given no written accounts were made until many many years after all these events that you speak about as if you were there?

    Are we to believe that accounts of what this person or that person said can be relied upon as an exact account of what was said by this person or that person.

    Do you know how much time pasted from the events you discuss and when they were recorded in writting?
  8. Chado2423 Registered Member

    • You seem rather confident in your opinions and have what seems a fair understanding of the New Testament."
    Thank you. That is kind, maybe a little too kind. I have had formal education in the New Testament at Bob Jones University and am currently studying a self paced course New Covenant in the New Testament through Third Millennium Ministries online. I neither consider myself a scholar, nor an expert theologian. But I have had both extensive formal education and informal education in the New Testament. However, I consider your usage of "opinion" rather circumspect in this discussion, (and plausibly I might find a grievance toward that word usage here.) It is a matter of understanding the difference between interpolation of an idea by the one doing the interpreting of the text (you and I) and extrapolation of the intended meaning of the text according to the original intended meaning. One does not need to be familiar with any literary text to understand this distinction. The New Testament is a work of literature. (To me, it is more than that!!!!, but even supposing it were not, at face value, it is an antiquated written work, no?). Yes, I have a fair understanding of the New Testament, but in no means, would I consider myself a New Testament scholar.
    • The question on my mind is that you speak about as if you were there?
    Response: Unfortunately for you, I'm not a fan of complex questions, even if they are simplistic in tone. It doesn't suit my ADHD too well. Please, as a courtesy to me, if you will, continue the conversation, using one topical question at a time. It will be greatly appreciated. But I will dissect this, anyway:
    • "You speak about as if you were there." [Essentially, you are asking "why do you talk as if you were there?"]
    I certainly was NOT there, but who reads Shakespeare without putting themselves in the role of Mercutio, Romeo, or Juliet? Who watches a movie, without imagining what it would have been like to be the man behind the curtain, or the girl that walked on that "yellow brick road" to find her way home? Friend, no, I wasn't there, but admittedly, I do put myself in the story. What if I was in the story and I was a Roman Soldier during the crucifixion? Would have I simply obeyed orders? Might I have rebelled? Might have I shouted "I WILL NOT HANG THIS MAN, HE IS NOT A CRIMINAL!" What would have I done? What about if I was Jesus' mother? What type of anguish would have I felt to see my son put on a cross for crimes he did not commit. Remember according to the stories (all four accounts), Pilate found no explicit record of criminal activity : "Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."(Luke 23:4); "Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews gathered there, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him." (John 19:4); "When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" (Matthew 27:24); "Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them.“Crucify him!” they shouted.“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” (Mark 15:9-14)
    • How could we rely upon anything given no written accounts were made until many many years after all these events?
    • Are we to believe that accounts of what this person or that person said can be relied upon as an exact account of what was said by this person or that person.
    In terms of literary analysis, this is a complete irrelevancy. I'm happy to discuss the historicity of the gospels with you on a personal basis (my email is chadfisher2423@gmail.com), but it is not immediately pertinent to this topic. Even, if the story is meant to be taken as a fictional account or a fantasy, we're still looking for why the character in the fantasy or fictional story was crucified according to this topic of discussion. (But I play along below.)
    • Do you know how much time pasted from the events you discuss and when they were recorded in writing(spelling corrected.)?
    Matthew was written between circa 70 to 100 A.D. , Mark was most likely written in 70 A.D., Luke was written between circa 60 to 90 A.D., John was written between circa 80 to 95 A.D., ALL of the New Testament works were completed by 100 A.D., The crucifixion happened between circa 21 to 36 A.D.

    The earliest possible date of any of the accounts to have been written is 60 A.D. The earliest time of the crucifixion is 21 A.D. 21 subtracted from 20 is 39. Therefore, the earliest possible record is 39 years after the purported event! [Certainly NOT the "centuries" that skeptics arbitrarily and ignorantly toss out there. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia, thank you.]

    According to himself, Luke was acting like a reporter, gaining the information of the events..."Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

    How is the timing of this investigation not problematic? [Let us pull in another source: "Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...". Do you know what this is? This is probably the earliest non-biblical historical antiquated literary description. This is a writing by the Roman historian and senator Tacitus in 64 A.D. If Luke was making up this story, why would Tacitus a ROMAN historian write about it in historical language? Things that make you go "hmmmmm???"

    There is something even more surprising that a Roman would talk about "Christus" (the Latinized version of the Greek "Christos" or condensed form "Christ".) Yes, I said even more surprising.
    There are a handful of clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally surmised that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states: "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

    The earliest possible date of this writing about Jesus as a historical person BY THE JEWISH RABBIS is 70. AD. The earliest possible date of the crucifixion was what again? 21 A.D. A little math. 21 subtracted from 70 is 49 years. (Of course, the Rabbi's are only alluding alliteratively to the crucifixion, but it is worth noting, nonetheless.) Are you also questioning the Jewish community about the timing of this particular writing? Probably not, but to be consistent you should call up the local synagogue immediately! This is not a biblical writing, but it mentions Yeshu (the Aramaic name for Jesus) as well as his execution, and uses alliterative language referring to death of the Yeshu character.) At the earliest, this text was possibly written 49 years after the event, and it is NOT a Christian sympathetic work!

    Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore. Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who previously tried to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’ crucifixion and the subsequent earthquake:

    “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."

    Thallus wrote his account in 52 A.D. Research it, if you don't believe me. Now, let's go back, the earliest possible gospel account was Luke's at 60 A.D. A little math. 52 subtracted from 60 is 8. Thallus, a secular author, wrote of the crucifixion at least eight years BEFORE Luke finished his gospel! The earliest known recorded secular skeptic (i.e. Thallus) of the event of the crucifixion, was not a skeptic of the event itself, but was skeptical about the meaning of the events that transpired! Thallus wasn't trying to claim that the purported events did not happen, only trying to reconcile the events from a miraculous interpretation. Now, that's something to think about!
  9. Chado2423 Registered Member

    "The earliest possible date of any of the accounts to have been written is 60 A.D. The earliest time of the crucifixion is 21 A.D. 21 subtracted from 20 is 39.Therefore, the earliest possible record is 39 years after the purported event! [Certainly NOT the "centuries" that skeptics arbitrarily and ignorantly toss out there. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia, thank you.]"

    This should read "21 subtracted from 60 is 39." I apologize for the typo.
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Yes, it does mean exactly that.
  11. Chado2423 Registered Member

    This is a senseless musing...

    Let me explain...

    To reconcile this view, you will need to explain logically EXACTLY about how awareness of a future predicted outcome necessitates that the one who making the prediction is orchestrating the outcome.

    Certainly, in theory, one could predict an outcome that occurs even after their death. Simply because one makes a prediction of a future outcome DOES NOT mean that the predictor is the AGENT of the cause of the outcome. Where in the world do you think it is logical to make this assumption?

    In other words, you will need to make an argument that shows that anyone who makes any prediction of a future outcome must be the one who makes that outcome come into fruition.

    I'm ready to hear it.

    Additionally, to note: in the actual literature it is the character of Jesus who makes the prediction in the New Testament. It is the author Isaiah who makes the prediction in the Old Testament. Neither of which, from a literature perspective need to necessitate "God" as the predictor, lest we interpret Jesus as God as implicated in John 1:1-14. But even leaving that aside, we can observe it solely in human terms, that the texts themselves present Isaiah and Jesus as the one's making the prediction of Jesus' crucifixion. We can even put the character of God aside, because there is no explicit indication of the character of God making this particular prediction in the actual literature as it is written (unless we consider either Isaiah or Jesus to be equal to the character of "God", that is.)

    According to your illogical view, we should also say Isaiah orchestrated the crucifixion, and this is simply an absurdity! Isaiah was dead and buried.

    Isaiah's foreknowledge (see especially Isaiah 53:3) of the event does not mean that Isaiah orchestrated the outcome.

    Neither does Jesus' prediction of the event mean that He caused it.

    If a psychic successfully makes a prediction, would you be quick to claim that the psychic is the one who made the event happen? If no, why not? You should according to the nature of your own views here!

    But, let me stop using bold, and say it more simply. The character of God is not revealed explicitly as making such a prediction. I challenge you to find any such prediction that says "God foresaw the crucifixion" or any other such mention in the entirety if the Bible that explicitly mentions "God" or "The Lord" or "THE LORD" as the foreseer of this particular event.
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2018
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Because he had the ability to change the outcome.
  13. Chado2423 Registered Member

    Ah, "God" doesn't have to be a real being, to make sense of the event described in the text from a literature viewpoint. You are treating the character of God as a real entity here. Not a fictional character in a piece of literature.

    This should be a moot point to one who presumes the literature to be a work of fiction.


    If this God character is meant to be perceived as unreal, it is pointless to debate whether or not a fictional being could have changed an outcome that *He foresaw. It is further pointless to care what a fictional entity in a mythology might have done differently.

    I edited my comment above as I was having computer problems. Please do read it.

    Let us assume that God is a fictional character. Now, here, is a problem. In the texts themselves the only explicit predictors of the events are Jesus and the author Isaiah. Neither of which explicitly necessitate the fictional "God" as the foreseer, (unless we consider either Isaiah or Jesus\Yeshu as "God".)

    [*Disclaimer: I'm using the tradition honorific capitalization purely for my personal sake, in this case, as this is not particularly a Christian site.]

    There is a fine distinction between literary interpretation of the New Testament literature and theological persuasions, but it is necessary that we don't conflate the two here.
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2018
  14. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    It makes perfect sense. There has to be a cost for every deed, Jesus sacrificed Himself, pure torture, to give everyone a chance of paradise.

    He was right, you haven't got a clue what you do.
  15. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Exactly. Pathetic, childish turd.
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    You are most welcome.
    Then you should be reasonably confident and have a fair understanding as I observed.
    I fail to see how my post could be considered in any way complex.

    If you wish I will make it very simple simple.

    How can you build faith upon dubious heresay evidence recorded many years after the events?

    Do you not think it odd that after all the years that passed between the words and a recording of those alledged words (and there is a great deal of conversation) that the words and conversations are preserved and presented as exact and specific?

    Can you recall and record say a public meeting you attended thirty years ago and write down what the speaker said and what various folk said to you during the day with any hope of accuracy?

    I suggest even when a reporter is present the recording is not precise so what hope does a recording being made so long after the words and events have of being even a little correct?

    Be realistic and dont let your faith, which I call opinion, blind you to this obvious and inescapable
    fact...you cite heresay evidence...which is not evidence at all.

    Irrespective of the lapse in time we arrive at the fact is the evidence is mere heresay and if in a court of law would not be admisable. It offers nothing as to what really took place or what was said.

    Why do you accept such as the truth when in effect there is no evidence for anything you suggest in any account of the history.
    If Jesus was all he is held up to be there would have been a troup of scribes following him everywhere recording exactly what he did and said....fact.

    There is no evidence so why do you believe any of it?

    I hope that is not too complex.

    You ask who..me for one..I do not indulge fantasy.

    It is a waste of my time.

    I do not read fiction I draw on my experience to enjoy life rather than try to look through the eyes of an author who probably can only make up stories and not have a real life where the experiences are not mere inventions of imagination.

    I want my real experiences and not those fantasy experiences of someone who is forced to make them up to feed the desires of folk who dont find real life available and need anothers fantasy for entertainment.

    You are fantasizing and although most interesting has no bearing on the fact that you start with very old heresay evidence ... you have no foundation even for a well worked out fantasy is my point.

    You pad out what has not been established as truth...do you see that is what you are doing or does your faith, your opinion, blind you to my reasonable claim and the implications of same?

    This is heresay.
    The truth is we have no way of knowing any of those words were spoken.

    You cite it as if the words were recorded as they were spoken ...they were not... and if they were recorded as they were spoken then they could be used and then perhaps even assume a mild degree of credibility...but they are heresay and therefore useless...absolutely and undeniably useless.

    I disagree most strongly.

    You present biblical passages as reliable yet clearly they are not on any reasonable assessment they are mere heresay.

    Everything you present clearly is mere heresay recorded so long after the events or conversations to be no more than usless.
    That is not evidence and if you want to go "hmmmmmm" you may but you leave the path of honest enquirey and grasp at whatever straw you wish to maintain your opinion.

    Its not evidence so dont try to dress it up as such to support your opinion....

    And if you are serious try going "Hmmmmm" over the inconvenient observations that I make as to the heresay aspect of the existence of deeds and words of Jesus....Hmmmmm
    Thank you.

    I was trying to break the news gently that all we have is heresay.
    I am happy that you are so well informed but disappointed that being so well informed you still insist on relying on heresay.

    Heresay is bad enough if one tries to use in the next day but given the time periods between deeds and conversations, and their recording, it makes it laughable that anyone would seriously place any credibility in any of the story constructed afterwards.

    I think if you really thought about it you may see that you grasp at any straw that offers hope that all you believe in has no credible evidence.

    I am sorry I could not devote more time to your post and deal with all points.

    But I make this one point again ...quoting the New Testament is of no use as it is heresay.

    If you have not guessed I am an athiest who thinks folk like yourself have been conned so I think you waste your time with this stuff.

    If there was a God he would not leave his existence a mystery and certainly only in the hands of some character from some backwater appearing two thousand years ago.
    Seriously think about it...if its all about God dont you think we would be give

    Sorry if any of this is complex but I am a very simple fella and hope you can follow what I say with little confusion.
    Thank you for attempting to answer my question I did enjoy reading all that you had written.
  17. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way He wants it. Well, He gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    We are all different but I can not work out what you mean...I am not sure if its me or you but out of respect for your right to offer an opinion do you think you could rephrase what you have said ...perhaps use names because I miss what you are trying to say. ....
  19. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    I do think god is fictional, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the story. Jesus or anyone else can't be a prophet without supernatural help. And if the future can be foretold rather than just predicted, then the universe is deterministic, and there can be no moral choices, thus no sin.
  20. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    I just said you were an atheist.
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I dont like assumptions but that is the most reasonable assumption that I have seen for a long time.

    But it really is reasonable given the concept of God starts with no evidence and builds on that pathetic foundation...no wonder the concept is so easy to bring down.

    Before you start assuming this or that why dont you start with some evidence that any of the fantasy you present has any basis in reality.
    And for those who may think I have delusions of being God I ask "how can you wish to be something that you do not believe in whatsoever? "...that logic is not even logic and as an observation does not make sense at all...
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2018
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Thank you.
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Distraction: Click because he cannot carry out our self-destruction.

    Two notes go here:

    (1) It is always an interesting proposition when one does not distinguish between "intelligent reading" and their own opinion and interpretation; some days those aspects overlap, and others they don't, yet still others will find the juxtaposition pretentious at best.

    (2) Satan, by both Scripture (Job 1.6-12)↱ and necessity of the Lord's scope and power, an instrument of God.​

    Our neighbor's scant summary, offered some nine months ago, is hardly the most refined, but it is not especially inaccurate insofar as what I would set aside is the disdain easily shrugged off; the Will of God is what It is, and Capracus is not incorrect on that point.

Share This Page