Zone1 Christian Zionism

[ding]

As you said, these narratives were crafted to make theological points. You admitted the Exodus story was embellished, was it a conspiracy to commit fraud?

No. That’s not what I said. What I said was very specific. There were events of historical importance that were being passed down because that’s how they passed down history. Orally. Through stories. The OT accounts were embellished to teach about the covenant, obedience, justice and the special relationship they believed they had with God and to make them more memorable so they were easier to remember and pass down.

You are waving you arms and not explaining anything.

 

[ding]

As you said, these narratives were crafted to make theological points. You admitted the Exodus story was embellished, was it a conspiracy to commit fraud?

I think my favorite part of your dishonesty is using what I said about OT accounts but never actually acknowledging that what I said about the OT accounts makes sense. That and your piss poor arm waving attempt at trying shoe horn in that explanation for NT accounts when it makes no sense.

 

[alang1216]

No. That’s not what I said. What I said was very specific. There were events of historical importance that were being passed down because that’s how they passed down history. Orally. Through stories. The OT accounts were embellished to teach about the covenant, obedience, justice and the special relationship they believed they had with God and to make them more memorable so they were easier to remember and pass down.

You are waving you arms and not explaining anything.

Jesus was THE event in Christianity and the NT accounts were embellished to teach about him. The birth narratives were obvious embellishments, you can't believe they are the only ones.

 

[alang1216]

I think my favorite part of your dishonesty is using what I said about OT accounts but never actually acknowledging that what I said about the OT accounts makes sense. That and your piss poor arm waving attempt at trying shoe horn in that explanation for NT accounts when it makes no sense.

What you said made sense for the OT so why not the NT? I know, because you don't want it to.

 

[ding]

Jesus was THE event in Christianity and the NT accounts were embellished to teach about him. The birth narratives were obvious embellishments, you can't believe they are the only ones.

Yes, the historicity of who Jesus is is the point of the accounts. Which is why these accounts stand apart from OT accounts. What you are calling embellishments are the historical events.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, the historicity of who Jesus is is the point of the accounts. Which is why these accounts stand apart from OT accounts. What you are calling embellishments are the historical events.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[ding]

We will have to agree to disagree.

If you could explain in a sensible fashion how each of the 40 accounts of miracles performed by Christ were embellished and why they were embellished, I would probably agree with you.

In our conversations today in other threads, I acknowledged several times when you made good points and agreed with them.

 

[ding]

What you said made sense for the OT

Thank you.

so why not the NT? I know, because you don't want it to.

No. It’s not because I don’t want it to. It’s because it’s the truth. I will always seek the truth or reality because I believe God is truth and reality.

It’s the truth because unlike the OT accounts, Jesus is the historical event. Every OT account that was embellished was about an historical event.

 

[alang1216]

If you could explain in a sensible fashion how each of the 40 accounts of miracles performed by Christ were embellished and why they were embellished, I would probably agree with you.

They were all embellished and I've told you why. If Jesus really performed the miracles attributed to him, his following would have been immense and the Romans would not have the courage to kill him so publicly. Are all the 40 miracles in each of the Gospels and Paul's letters. Why not?

In our conversations today in other threads, I acknowledged several times when you made good points and agreed with them.

Thank you. When you make a good point I'll gladly agree.

 

[alang1216]

It’s the truth because unlike the OT accounts, Jesus is the historical event. Every OT account that was embellished was about an historical event.

????

 

[Failzero]

We will have to agree to disagree.

About Progressive Marxism and Islam in alignment

 

[ding]

They were all embellished and I've told you why. If Jesus really performed the miracles attributed to him, his following would have been immense and the Romans would not have the courage to kill him so publicly. Are all the 40 miracles in each of the Gospels and Paul's letters. Why not?

So you are back to believing it was a conspiracy.

But no, you haven’t walked through a single one explaining what the historical significance was, what the embellishments were and the purpose for the embellishments. All you have done is wave your arms and describe conspiracy.

Thank you. When you make a good point I'll gladly agree.

You ignore your incongruities and dismiss your defeats. Good luck with those failed behaviors.

 

[ding]

????

Walk me through one of the accounts of Jesus healing the sick explaining the historical significance of the event, how it was embellished and why it was embellished.

Because I can do that for the OT accounts you find disagreeable to your sensibilities.

 

[ding]

If Jesus really performed the miracles attributed to him, his following would have been immense and the Romans would not have the courage to kill him so publicly.

It’s because Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead that they began worshipping Jesus as God immediately after he rose from the dead.

 

[ding]

Are all the 40 miracles in each of the Gospels and Paul's letters. Why not?

Is this another conspiracy argument? Sure sounds like it.

 

[alang1216]

So you are back to believing it was a conspiracy.

But no, you haven’t walked through a single one explaining what the historical significance was, what the embellishments were and the purpose for the embellishments. All you have done is wave your arms and describe conspiracy.

Been there, done that. Was there a 'conspiracy' in the Exodus story? Why were the miracles of Jesus any different? You refuse to see what you don't want to see.

 

[alang1216]

Walk me through one of the accounts of Jesus healing the sick explaining the historical significance of the event, how it was embellished and why it was embellished. .

Done that for the entire group. I see no point in addressing each one. Is there even one that appears in every gospel?

Because I can do that for the OT accounts you find disagreeable to your sensibilities.

I think we agree the OT contains embellishments. Can you admit the NT does too?

 

[alang1216]

It’s because Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead that they began worshipping Jesus as God immediately after he rose from the dead.

Some did, some didn't. Why would that have been?

 

[alang1216]

Is this another conspiracy argument? Sure sounds like it.

If it was a conspiracy you'd think every miracle would be in every gospel.

 

[ding]

Been there, done that. Was there a 'conspiracy' in the Exodus story? Why were the miracles of Jesus any different? You refuse to see what you don't want to see.

No. You haven’t. You are lying.

All of your questions will be answered when you explain the historical event, what was embellished and why it was embellished.