*Alward: Re: Challenge to Helen
JAlw@aol.com JAlw@aol.com
Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:13:25 EST (00910242805, b1cf7b0b.3640df95@aol.com)
> > ======================
> > Joe Alward:
> >
> > Based on facts not specifically reported in the text one may construct
an
> > infinite number of scenarios. Only those which are based on contextual
> > evidence AND which pass the laugh test should be considered.
> >
> > Let me repeat an example I've mentioned elsewhere. Suppose the bible
told
> us
> > that the potter cast the 30 pieces of silver to the feet of a penniless
> Judas,
> > then later tells us the Judas pays 30 pieces of silver for a fine robe.
> How
> > could a penniless Judas have money to pay for a fine robe? Well, would
any
> > errantist laugh at an inerrantist who asserts that Judas bent over and
> picked
> > up the silver? This is a scenario not not specifically mentioned in the
> text,
> > but is it laughable? Each proposed harmonization has to be looked at on
a
> > case-by-case basis. Can anyone point to anything in my blood-plague
> > harmonization which is laughable?
> >
> > After assuming for the sake of argument that the water-to-blood
conversion
> > actually occurred, who would dare argue that blood-to-water conversions
by
> > Moses/Aaron and the magicians is laughable? Anyone?
>
> HELEN:
> Idle curiosity makes me wonder if our Joe has the slightest idea of the
real
> contradiction in the Judas story, because it is far more difficult to
> harmonize than this crap he wrote. Joe, are you trying to claim that Judas
> bought the field and not the priests? You know that Cohens (Son of Arron;
> priests) may have nothing to do with the management of a cemetery to this
day
> under Jewish law? How do you think Judas die? Did he hang? Or fall
headlong
> in a field? Try Acts 1:16-19 vs. Matthew 27:1-10. You will have to
actually
> read the verses before opening you yip on this one, so I expect you wont
> bother to answers.
> =================
> Joe Alward:
>
> "Joe, are you trying to claim that Judas bought the field and not the
priests?
> "
>
> Helen, didn't you see the word "Suppose" in my statement above? I was
posing
> a hypothetical to make another point.
>
> By the way, I explain why I think the potter's field story is nonsense in
"The
> Potter's Field" Prophecy at
> http://members.aol.com/JAlw/potters_field_prophecy.html
HELEN
Joe what I've seen is a silly man repeating other peoples' arguments on
subject that he knows so little on that he can't figure out what is a valid
argument and what isn't. Why are you doing this most of the errantists have
excellent web pages of their own where they make their own arguments
correctly and where they can defend them. By the way which potter's field
story do you think is nonsense? And are you aware that there is some
archaeological evidences there was a cemetery for non Jews called, "the field
of blood" near Jerusalem in the first century?
============
Joe Alward:
Instead of asking me why I present arguments, why don't you try to rebut them.
Now, let me ask you to defend your statement, above, that "most of the
errantists have excellent web pages where they make their own arguments
correctly and they can defend them". Are you just guessing or hoping that
this is true? Can you find someone on this list besides Till who has written
an article about the Potter's Field controversy? If so, will you tell
everyone the URL and why you think that essay is superior? Have you even read
my Potter's Field essay? Perhaps you would like to prove to everyone how
foolish I am by showing them exactly how bad my essay is? Can you do that?
Will you?
The essay is at http://members.aol.com/JAlw/potters_field_prophecy.html
Once you've tried to find the huge problems with my essay that Till claims
must be there (since I've had so little experience) even though he hasn't read
any of them, then perhaps you'll see that Till has just been blowing hot air
all this time. Prove me wrong.