Radorth

All the more reason to believe the story, as Durant points out as well. Of course he didn't spend his days searching for minutiae to back up his pet theories, and applying absurd tests of veracity.

Rad

Radcliffe Emerson

I was repeating what my friend said in his sermon this past summer. He emailed me back that he had gotten the info from Walter Wink, and I posted that as soon as I received it.

Toto

Radcliffe - learn to ignore Radorth's barbs. They mean more to him than to anyone else, and it's not worth your time to figure out what he's talking about. Thanks for posting the information.

Radorth

I see you both also ignored the post where I pointed out how creative Radcliff's memory is, and it's conflicts with Toto's cite. At the very least, we have two sets of totally inconsistent theories from supposedly "rational" people.

Rad

Family Man

I'm not the one trying to guess what the apostles intended or not. That seems to be your speciality. Nor do I know whether their actions had to do with their leader's demeanor or whether it is due to the social situation they found in themselves in. In fact, I don't even consider the point even remotely relevant to the question at hand. This is just another tedious example of your travelling distraction show.

The only question is what the sword metaphor stood for. You haven't even tried to answer that question, probably because you can't. But I thank you for the amusing diversions.

Family Man

Ah, I see. First we should believe them because they weren't morons. Now, we should because they were morons. Make up your mind, Radoth -- these contradictory statements of yours are making me dizzy!

Family Man

Radoth--
Please explain to us how this famous passage does not represent violent imagery. And do try to keep in mind that the apostles actions after his death is quite irrelevant to the point.

Radorth

See the atheist H.G. Wells insightful quote above. For more insight on Jesus' purposes, read the link supplied. It seems a skeptic and an atheist have pretty well debunked your simplistic theories.

Rad

Family Man

What theory? I haven't advanced one. That's been your thing, inbetween your contradictory posts. I'm just wondering two things. Can you explain how the following bible quote could be interpreted as non-violent?


And I wonder how many more inane, irrelevant posts you're willing to put on this thread before you actually bother to answer my questions.

I'm very patient, Radorth. I don't mind asking the same question until I get a real answer.

Radorth

No in your case cynical innuendo is sufficient, as with Doherty. And yes you do have an agenda here, to make Jesus no different from Muhammed.

No, stubborn. Wells, Durant and I have given you plenty of reasonable interpretations and options, but they are just too complicated for you. Meanwhile Radcliffe's tortured interpretations are reasonable to you apparently. If you would argue with them like one skeptic here did, you might get accused of something besides mere cynicism.

Rad