Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Duh.
And mine.
Of course.
You haven't demonstrated it. You just keep saying it's wrong.
Is this really what the real Ten Commandments looked like?
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
oatmeal
Well-known member
Show us that from the scripture.This isn't blue because the person who made it on their computer made it blue, it's blue because the tradition says the Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God into sapphire tablets that when placed side-by-side formed a perfect cube, and no matter which side you looked at, you always saw all ten of the Ten Commandments, from all six sides, when the tablets were put together (the larger print was so the five shorter Commandments always filled up one whole side----basically adjusting the font size to fit the space).
Had you heard about this tradition, @Derf ? You seem very knowledgeable about the Torah is why.
Sapphire - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The ark of the covenant makes more sense if this tradition is true, it carried the tablets, and so it carried basically a cube. Of rock. Makes a whole lot more sense than having two beefy clinkin tiles in there, which are more like what I was picturing the tablets as, clinkin around inside basically a hope chest. If the Ten looked like this, then the ark was holding a cube. I'm sure it was snug. I wasn't so sure before.
Exodus 24:12 And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Show me you follow the thread to this point first.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Why? I am replying to the opening post.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I'm not reinventing the wheel is why. Read the thread. At least read my posts.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
They're everywhere lol!
An argument from silence is, “There is no tradition that the Apostle John died, therefore, the Apostle John is dead.” That is clearly a fallacy.
Compare it with this, “There is a tradition that Christ rose from the dead, therefore He did rise from the dead.” That is not an argument from silence, but is an argument from tradition. An argument from tradition is also a fallacy.
But, when we abandon the pursuit of a deductive argument, and instead compare the logical possibility that Christ rose from the dead, with the polar opposite that He did not, if there is no tradition that He rose from the dead, then this counts as evidence that the Resurrection is fictive, so its probability is therefore lower than if there is a tradition that He rose from the dead. This is not an argument from tradition, and it also doesn’t ignore and dismiss tradition as valid evidence, it just does not constitute a deductive argument.
Compare now the thesis that the Apostle John still lives. There is no tradition that he died (contra all the other Apostles), and this counts as evidence corroborating and consonant with the logical possibility that he did not die. We cannot make a deductive argument here, a deductive argument is not available, for the lack of conclusive evidence or proof one way or the other.
So, that there exists no tradition that John died, counts as evidence that he did not die, and still lives even today. iow it is unsurprising that there is no tradition of him dying, on the theory that he did not die.
If he did die, then there not being a tradition of him dying is surprising; although, I think all things considered, it is less of a problem than if he did not die, but that there is a tradition of him dying.