re: The 501(c)(3) Trojan Horse in the American Church (another LBJ gift)

quote:

---

I probably didn’t respond because I said what I said and so did you and there a further discussion on the subject was fruitless. Your illogical and unscientific opinions aren’t proving me wrong

---

I'm interpreting the Bible based on its own context, showing objectively that its own language is proving you wrong every time. You keep throwing out "contradictions" and I keep showing you how they are not logical contradictions. Instead of refuting me, you move on to the next lie.

Must be nice to be able to make a false claim and then not have to support while saying "further discussion on the subject (is) fruitless".

That's also an interesting tactic because in the prior response, you called me out for not responding to you, as if you expected me to engage with your poor argumentation, while then ignoring my response and then saying you "said what [you] said" (and were done responding). Why the double standard?

quote:

---

You see, the Bible says two different things. The priests bought it. Judas bought it.

---

You see, the Bible uses language very similar to we do in every day parlance. I can lend my son money to buy a car and both of us can say we bought the car; there is no logical contradiction there. All an alleged contradiction requires is a probably explanation and it goes away. It's not necessarily a contradiction if it can be resolved, and I don't even need to show that the explanation is correct, only that it could be correct, and if it could be correct, then a contradiction isn't necessary.

quote:

---

There’s a problem with your bloated body idea too. Acts says he fell head-first. Judas couldn’t have banged himself and then fell head-first into the field.

---

Why not? If he hanged himself in a tree and he went up high enough, or if the tree was on a small cliff in the field, he could have rotated in the air if the rope (or branch) broke. It could be possible that if the rope were long enough, he could have been decapitated and his innards came out that way. There are a few different possibilities that can harmonize the accounts, and as I just said, all that is needed to dispel a contradiction is a plausible explanation. You don't need to be convinced of it for it to be valid.

quote:

---

To me the only plausible explanation is that the writer of Luke/Acts intended to overwrite and supersede Matthew (and Mark) and didn’t get ahold of the older gospels to burn them (like they did to Marcion’s Bible and his Antithesis) before they were spread out of control.

---

Just because you reject a plausible explanation doesn't mean it's not plausible. You're not offering a rebuttal here. You're just speculating on other unproven conjectures that you hope to be true to further justify your unbelief. You need to repent of your rejection of God's Word and put your trust in Jesus Christ before you perish in your sins and suffer for eternity under the wrath of your creator.

quote:

---

I don’t hate “God”. I just realize that what you are calling “God”, Paul called the “god of this world” and it is that god who is the evil creator, that god tried to temp Jesus on the mountain, that god is the god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc. in John Jesus says no one has ever seen his father, and I know you know that, and I know you know the patriarchs of the Old Testament met “God” face to face. That god would be “Satan” to the gospel writers, including canonical gospels but also non-canonical.

---

I already addressed this in a previous post that you refuse to respond to. Satan is not God and God is not Satan. Satan is a created being while God is eternal.

And yes, you do hate God, your creator. You are trying with everything in you to justify your rejection and suppression of the truth for the same reason why criminals hide from the police. You are guilty of treason against the King of creation and you deserve everlasting death.

quote:

---

Catholic 1 Corinthians Chapter 15

---

Thank you for providing this. There are textual variants that the Latin Vulgate used that most others don't, which is why there is a discrepancy in the translations.