 |
I asked this once and you did not reply, so I'll ask it again in hope that you will. When you read this, what possible alternative meaning can you get from it other than the whole story of the life of Jesus was about changing the politics of his day. Please reply this time, or stop with the silly remarks. "Jesus himself was bucking the system and his whole story (primary purpose J.L.) is about changing the politics of his day." What other possible meaning can you get from "whole story"?
You tawkin' to me, Willis? Tal said that, then softened it, for YOUR better understanding, with "I suspect bucking the system was an unintended consequence of doing what he was here to do."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That was not the statement I was referring to and you know that, nor was it the statement you were referring to when you said I "misquoted" him. So I guess that somehow makes my characterization of his statement wrong? Got it. Refer to the three amigos comment above.
I have no idea what you're talking about, what you want to hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You take every thing so literally, as some do, and never give an inch to nuance do you. That's okay, nitpick where you please I can always make it your fault. 8D Then I guess you never have to admit you're wrong. I'll do it for you with help from my friends.
Seriously though ancient Jews were playing politics before Jesus was born, as a matter of survival and cooperation in many cases, being occupied by foreign armies what choice did they have not to mention among themselves. Obviously when Jesus came along he had no intention of playing politics with them, their way, and therein lies the conflict. I do believe the ancient Jewish hierarchy was more afraid of the Romans than one man, but it takes courage to buck the system, political or otherwise.
From https://www.differentspirit.org/post...ject-jesus.php --Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
"At the time of Jesus, the Jews were under the heel of the Roman Empire. Their nation was occupied and they were waiting for a leader to arise to rescue them. They were focused on the hope of a Conquering King – so much so that many overlooked the prophecies of a Suffering Servant."
Plus, the Jews feared Jesus was trying to abolish their beloved rituals and OT law.
As expected.Quote:
I have no idea what you're talking about, what you want to hear.
It's always the other guy's fault. This time you're mad because I actually took your statement at face value. I guess from now on I'll just imagine it to mean whatever I want.Quote:
You take every thing so literally, as some do, and never give an inch to nuance do you. That's okay, nitpick where you please I can always make it your fault. 8D Then I guess you never have to admit you're wrong. I'll do it for you with help from my friends.
Fair enough.Quote:
Seriously though ancient Jews were playing politics before Jesus was born, as a matter of survival and cooperation in many cases, being occupied by foreign armies what choice did they have not to mention among themselves. Obviously when Jesus came along he had no intention of playing politics with them, their way, and therein lies the conflict. I do believe the ancient Jewish hierarchy was more afraid of the Romans than one man, but it takes courage to buck the system, political or otherwise.
2. I always figured you took things the way you wanted anyway, but I ain't mad about it...you just missed the big grins embedded in the post. That makes you wrong AGAIN but who's counting?
8D 8D 8D!!!
You mean the ONE big grin?Quote:
you just missed the big grins
Funny how you say I "took things the way" I wanted to, but then you get aggravated at me for being literal. Well, you can't have it both ways. Do you want a literal reading, or do you want me to just take things the way I want to?
This has become your mantra whenever you run out of cogent things to say which is your usual state of affairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
well it couldn't be your fault, could it, afterall you are perfectQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Thank you for that confirmation. Always someone else at fault. Never you.Quote:
This has become your mantra whenever you run out of cogent things to say which is your usual state of affairs.
Bad news, Tal, and more likely coming.
"EXCLUSIVE: Transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews that have been cleared for release show top law enforcement and intelligence officials affirming they had no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, senior administration and intelligence community officials told Fox News on Wednesday.This would align with the results of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — which found no evidence of illegal or criminal coordination between President Trump, the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 — but the numerous transcribed interviews could raise further questions about committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s past statements saying that there was “direct evidence” of collusion."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rus...c-mode-sources
Don't know why this would be bad news unless you want to gloat over Schiff not having direct evidence of collussion. We knew that already and we also know why that is, so what's your point?
Wait and see. Might amount to nothing, but the potential for exposing a number of violations of law appears to be significant.
I seriously doubt that since whatever violations and wrong doing have been effectively swept under the rug by the repub senate during the dufus impeachment. The dufus has since fired his "enemies" and anybody who isn't a loyal sycophant and made a complete debacle of the virus reponce both from a health perspective and an economical one.
That's why I ask what your point was.
My point? You can start here. " the numerous transcribed interviews could raise further questions about committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s past statements saying that there was “direct evidence” of collusion." Where is that "direct evidence" Schiff said they had when, in fact, it seems they had none? You can't claim that was swept under the rug by the repubs when Schiff was claiming he had it even before the hearings started. So where is it???
I've said all I have to say on the subject and until we get something new and concrete you can speculate all you want about it. Anything to not talk about the current dufus debacle happening everyday. In our other thread on this forum you are bring back the morality of abortion in comparison to the corona deaths so you sound pretty desperate to change the subject to blast the dems/liberals/left while you guys fumble and bumble over what to do about this health crisis.
I'd rather see the lists of how trillions were spent by banks and Mnuchin that was future taxpayer money if you don't mind.
I have to bring it up since the moral left on this board absolutely refuses to do so. They just don't care.Quote:
you are bring back the morality of abortion in comparison to the corona deaths so you sound pretty desperate to change the subject to blast the dems/liberals/left while you guys fumble and bumble over what to do about this health crisis.
Aren't you the one always telling me that we can't value lives over money???Quote:
I'd rather see the lists of how trillions were spent by banks and Mnuchin that was future taxpayer money if you don't mind.
1. I get it's your pet peeve, and speaking just for me, not mine. It's not like I don't care, certainly not as loudly as you do, but my approach is just much different. Obviously not to your liking. I would prefer all females and males verify pregnancy early, and consult with a doctor for options. After that individuals can make their own decisions.
2. How is asking the question valuing money over people? Fiscal responsibility, and accountability goes to helping more people faster don't you thing? What we can't talk about people and money at the same time or what?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:34 AM. |