I overhead a writer the other night on Date Line or 60 minutes II say that it would have been impossible for Jesus to have spoken anything right before he died because of the water in the lungs caused by the crucifixion. I think I have heard this line of thought before. Any input from the intellegentsia would help clear it up for me.

critical,

It's the son of God, remember? He can do whatever he wants.

R

So you are saying the "Slippery Slope" originally started with the "Slippery Cross". Is there no end to the uses of blood on a cross? R., I stand corrected.

[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 17, 2001).]

Fortunately for the christians, they have the answer the the Resistance said and that fixes everything.

Christians go by the spirit of the message and are not stuck to the bondage of convention. Only the ego was crucified and while that might have been a 'windbag' prior to crucifixion it was only an 'empty bag' during crucifixion. Heck even the "clothes that made the windbag" had been removed and now you are suggesting that there is water in the lungs? Are you sure you do not have water in the brain?

Amos

So you're saying Jesus was an empty bag. Yeh, I'll agree with that.

I use empty bags for trash and my dirty cloths. Are you sure it wasn't filled with the Spirit or anything? Seems like a waste of space. Maybe it stored that other hangee's sin. A Holy Sin Bag. Hey, that would make a nice premise for a religion. He stores your sin's in a sin bag and if you get out of line he can reach in a pull one out at random then punish you accordingly. Where is Paul when you need him, we need someone good with details and racked with guilt to get this new movement off the ground. They work cheaper.

On what basis do you believe Paul was racked with guilt? Most scholars have discarded that notion as an inaccurate and theologically naive product of the Protestant Reformation.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 17, 2001).]

Who needs scholars when common sense is used? Layman, your tactics are getting old but I have a lite day today.

Was the Bible written for Scholars or the common man?

Refusal to consider the study of New Testament scholars noted.

On what basis do you believe Paul was racked with guilt?

Just saying "common sense" is hardly a product of "critical thinking."

Since you insist on going off subject. May I?

Would putting a part of your Body into the mouths of men at the last supper be considered a homosexual act? Allowing men to eat you, must be considered a Gay act or a cannibalism. Setting up the monthly ritual for eternity of doing so, has to be.

See...going off subject never allows the first argument to conclude... stick to the original argument or don't post.

Was the Bible written for Scholars or the common man?


[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 17, 2001).]