Nathan_Jr

Victor permitted the rapes by choosing not to mitigate the risk. Reminds me of a certain idiom.

Let this be repeated every time it comes up. WordWolf: (I've heard him on tape, addressing the Way Corps privately, dismissing concerns that women were ALREADY raped hitchhiking to LEAD and that it could happen AGAIN. He said they could be raped anywhere anytime, so he refused to consider changing anything.)

I have no doubt this is a deeply traumatic event in your life. Suppression is a natural response to trauma. Telling the story can be liberating and healing, for you and the reader. Let it out. Your anger is justified. Be angry, but if you won’t, I’ll be angry for the both of us. F**k these people and the charlatan they fellate.

This is beyond disturbing. This is abject wickedness. Behavior of such horrific depravity does not occur in a state of nature. Children do not act like this, unless they are "taught." Adults do not behave this way, unless they are "taught." Who is "the teacher"? It all goes back to "the teacher." All of it. All. Of. It. Victor wierwille, the thief come to kill, steal and destroy, laid the foundation. The buck stops with him. Had he gone on to sell home warranties or read palms at a county fair or any other endeavor matching his skill set, none of this would have happened.

I've read an old thread on THE. I didn't get it then and still don't. Hate to ask, but will someone please explain?

RIP Todd.

Waysider, you yourself may take credit for this tremendous kernel. Name it and claim it. Make it your own. You've been taught how (H-O-W) to do it, and you can't go beyond what you've been taught.

This documentary on four crucified is so much fun! https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8132700/

It has been said only one cross matters. I agree. I was once asked what it matters that victor was an enthusiastic, prolific plagiarist, if what he plagiarized is true. Well, we've addressed that issue throughly - turns out, it matters EVERYTHING. And he didn't care if any of it was true or not, anyway. The issue is what does the text say? What is written? Two. That's it. Two. Any other answer is a very privately divided eisegesis. Of course, everyone has free will to let the text privately interpret itself. (Yes, I know victor got "private interpretation" wrong, too.) I started this thread because my son got into it with his mom. Allegedly, he incorporated "four crucified" into a vitriolic reaction to her abusive treatment. Later, in an attempt to prove something, she sent him the google search results to her query about four crucified. This very thread was among the top three results. I had a laugh and revealed to him that his dad is NathanJr. I hope one day he reads widely here, if he needs to. When people are manipulated into believing they are "wrongly dividing" the Word of Truth by not reading into the text that which is not there... yeah, it matters.

"Master-craftsman" A craftsman knows how (H-O-W) to MAKE it fit. Square peg, round whole? No problem. Once the craftsman is done shaving off those angles, that peg will fit perfectly, because it is no longer a square peg. Someone here once said four crucified is just an illustration of how it all fits together. Mathematically. Scientifically. Like a hand in a glove. It is an illustration alright. If you don't like what the text plainly says, because it doesn't conform your presuppositions, you can just change how the text interprets itself and, voila! It now says whatever you need it to say.

God wrote it, but he was unable (because He was unwilling?) to accurately and precisely say what he meant and mean what he said. So, for 1900 years He sat wringing his hands over holy men wrongly dividing his word, until... a British flat-earther comes along to clear it all up. Isn't that just tremendous!

To your point, the prologue to GLuke explicitly says: this is it, this is all you need, as I have investigated everything carefully and will lay it out orderly for you. What an opportunity to separate truth from error! "You were told two, but there were actually four, and I should know after my exhaustive investigation." The attempts to harmonize the gospels, indeed the WHOLE bible, are infinitely regressive. The solution to a perceived problem is problematic which requires another solution to resolve the problem that arose from the problematic solution which requires... kakourgoi vs. lestai Victor himself said all robbers are criminals but not all criminals are robbers. He solved his own contrived problem. There is no contradiction. It's a word choice. Luke has his reasons for this, but they are not mathematical.

Thank you for using these "" with accuracy and precision.

I should say that Brent Niedergall’s work on the idiom ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν was not a direct response to Bullinger. He was responding to a simple question by an antagonist in denial: why doesn’t the expression distribute the two crucified, two here and two there? So, Brent doesn’t seem to have an agenda to advance. He is simply taking an honest academic approach to the text and grammar. He answered the question sufficiently. The explanation of the grammar is so clear that I wonder if Bullinger shouldn’t have known better, and if he didn’t, how much salt should be taken with anything he wrote? Further down the thread on this message board, someone mentioned that when an interloper is continuously dissatisfied with satisfactory answers, an agenda is often involved. Then a link to Bullinger’s appendix was posted.

Since neither John 19:18 nor any early text says ἐσταύρωσαν... μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἄλλους τέσσαρας, δύο ἐντεῦθεν καὶ δύο ἐντεῦθεν (“they crucified... four others with him, two here and two there”), Bullinger's fantastic imagination has not met the standards of proof required to establish it. (Not even the second time.) Why do you think it is that not a single gospel or any other text in the history of early Christendom says that there were four crucified with him? Is there a conspiracy to obscure how many people were crucified alongside Jesus? Every single gospel says two (Matt 27.38; Mark 15.27; Luke 23.32; John 19.18). Not a single one says four. And the earliest Church Fathers, Ignatious, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, all write of two crucified. This is the major problem that no amount of mistranslating and text twisting can resolve. Of course, I'm open to textual evidence proving four crucified, as I am open 19 crucified, or 79, or 427 or...