Search results

You can choose to ignore long posts if you want, but that doesn’t change the reason you ignored this one. You didn’t ignore it because of size — you ignored it because it documents contradictions you cannot answer:

Yes there was. I'll enlarge it for you: And you did say Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 were the same event. In Post 52, you grouped all three passages under one heading: Matthew 26:6–13 / Mark 14:3–9 / John 12:1–8 – Mary of Bethany Occurs in Bethany… six days before the...

If you’re going to discount what Matthew says elsewhere, then you must also discount Matthew 1:18–20. You cannot use Matthew’s correction about Joseph while rejecting Matthew’s correction about James and Joseph. Both corrections come from outside the Nazareth scene. It’s not a strawman. It’s...

I wasn’t confused by your previous analogy. The issue is that your analogy doesn’t match what’s happening in Matthew, and I already explained why. Your new analogy still doesn’t fit what’s happening in Matthew. If someone mistakenly calls your grandsons “brothers,” they are misidentifying a...

Post #191 did not answer this. It only added John 11:2 as a fourth anointing. It did not commit to one interpretation of John 11:2. You have argued all three mutually exclusive positions at different times: a. Non‑specific event You said "The only thing that John (11:2) identified is that...

You can choose to ignore long posts if you want, but that doesn’t change the reason you ignored this one. You didn’t ignore it because of size — you ignored it because it documents contradictions you cannot answer.

Are you asking for post numbers so you can go back and alter them after they've been quoted, like you did with posts #27 and #110? And I already linked to them: Click the words "post" that are highlighted blue — one will take you to post #52 and the other post #80. Your new explanation —...

We are still in the middle of the discussion in that thread, and you haven't responded to my last post there. If you truly refuted my position, then you could easily do this challenge too. But you haven't done either.

Post #191 did not answer this. It only added John 11:2 as a fourth anointing. It did not commit to one interpretation of John 11:2. You have argued all three mutually exclusive positions at different times: a. Non‑specific event You said "The only thing that John (11:2) identified is that...

You’re not ignoring the post because of its size — you’re ignoring it because it documents contradictions you cannot answer.

No, this is not a reading comprehension issue. It is a documentation issue. You did say Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 were the same event. You said it explicitly in your original “Two Different Anointings” post: Matthew 26:6–13 / Mark 14:3–9 / John 12:1–8 – Mary of Bethany...

Your analogy doesn’t match what’s happening in Matthew 13:55–56. If you mislabel someone a pediatrician when they’re actually a geriatrician, you’re misidentifying a profession. That mistake doesn’t change the meaning of the word “pediatrician.” But Matthew 13:55–56 isn’t about professions...

Matthew 5:22–24, 12:49–50, 23:8, 10 are not a strawman. They are familial relationships in Jewish kinship. You’re redefining “familial” to mean only “children of the same mother,” but Matthew never uses adelphos that way. Matthew uses adelphos for multiple kinds of family — national, communal...

Those examples are not a strawman. They are familial relationships in Jewish kinship. You’re redefining “familial” to mean only “children of the same mother,” but Matthew never uses adelphos that way. Matthew uses adelphos for multiple kinds of family — national, communal, apostolic, and...

You have not attempted the challenge. At least the others tried.

You’re redefining “familial” to mean only “children of the same mother,” but Matthew never uses adelphos that way — not even in Matthew 13:55. Matthew uses adelphos for multiple familial relationships that are not biological siblings: Fellow Countrymen / Kinsmen: Jesus uses adelphos in Matthew...

But you have already given arguments that fall under each of the three categories: a. Non‑specific event You said "The only thing that John (11:2) identified is that Mary anointed Yeshua more than once. No specific event given." This fits the definition of a non‑specific event: no location, no...

But your own posts show that the number did evolve. The timeline of your claims is clear and documented: Your original claim: Two anointings Post #52 (September 23): Luke 7:36–50 – Sinful Woman Matthew 26 / Mark 14 / John 12 – Mary of Bethany (You grouped all three together as one event.)...

You are now saying Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 are different events because of the dates. But that does not explain why you originally grouped Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, and John 12:1–11 as one event: Your new explanation only describes your current position. It does not...

https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/jesus%E2%80%99s-adelphoi-scripture-and-early-christian-testimony.78514/