Nathan_Jr

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...

Previously, we discussed how translations work. We discussed how word-for-word translations can and WILL be misleading and confusing. Sometimes, words must be supplied by the translator so the idiom expressed in the source language is understandable in the target language. This is not a dishonest corruption of text, it is simply sound translation methodology. The following is an excellent treatment of the idiomatic expression in question, ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν. I happened upon this in an academic Biblical Greek message board a few years ago. The thread was originated by a random user seeking to confirm his bias, seeking evidence AFTER asserting his conclusion. This was one of the answers from Brent Niedergall. https://niedergall.com/an-obscure-greek-question-no-longer-waiting-for-an-answer/ "Internet message boards and social networks normally serve as bustling forums where people can ask questions and expect rapid answers. Recently, however, I came across one question that had been languishing in the data dunes for years. Someone was re-asking a question from eight years before that they felt never got its day in court. It centers on John’s account of the crucifixion, specifically his use of an idiom—an expression. It’s one I’ve never considered, and one, to my knowledge, that has received little attention in the literature. Let me show you. In John 19, Jesus is taken to Golgotha for crucifixion. In v. 18 we read: So the idiom in question is this “ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν.” The word ἐντεῦθεν by itself has the sense of “from here.” The idiom, therefore, would have the sense of “from here and from there.” Some wonder what justification the translators had for translating this as “one on either side.” Why couldn’t we instead understand this verse to mean that there were two others on either side of Jesus—five men on five crosses with Jesus in the center? Is it possible? Well, from the outset, if we keep reading John 19, we see that the question is a non-issue. When we get to v. 32, we’re explicitly told the soldiers broke the legs of the two others crucified with Jesus. There were only three men on crosses. But let’s dig into this idiom further. The Grammar Ἐντεῦθεν is an adverb, a word that modifies either a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. An adverb answers questions like: “Where?”, “When?” or “In what way?” The adverb ἐντεῦθεν answers the question “Where?” This makes perfect sense because according to BDF, adverbs ending in -θεν (e.g., πόθεν, ὅθεν, ἔνθεν, etc.) answer the question ‘Whence?’ So if adverbs modify, what is ἐντεῦθεν modifying? Here it modifies the elided verb ἐσταύρωσαν (“they crucified”) describing the action of the Roman soldiers crucifying these two other men with Jesus. John chose not to repeat the verb because it’s understood from the previous clause. Therefore, these two others have been crucified on either side of Jesus. Now let’s look more at this expression. Examples to Consider You actually won’t find this exact construction anywhere else in the New Testament or Septuagint. A much more common idiom that uses a synonymous term is ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν, which occurs over thirty times in the Septuagint. This idiom will also be considered under Example #3 because it can be equated with ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν. Now, here are three examples from the Septuagint. Example #1: Exodus 17:12 In this example, the number one (εἷς) is separately assigned to both sides. Example #2: Joshua 8:22 In this example, the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος has been separately assigned to both sides. This is similar to what we saw in Example #1 with the number one. Example #3: Ezekiel 40:10 Out of over thirty occurrences of ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν in the Septuagint, only a few have anything to do with cardinal numbers (Ezek 40:10, 41, 48, 49; 41:2), and each of these functions the same way: it states the number with both the first and second occurrence of ἔνθεν. Here’s Ezek 40:10 as a third example. Again, you can see how number is given to clarify that there were three rooms on each side. Drawing Conclusions In the first two examples, the number is stated to show that this was how many are on each side separately. Whenever the author wants to make it clear that he is describing two separate entities that should be understood as such, he does so. In Exodus, Aaron was the one at one side of Moses, and Hur was the one on the other. In Ezekiel, there are three rooms on one side and three on the other. This is not the case in John 19:18. If John wanted to say there were two on each side, he would have included a second δύο to read ἄλλους δύο ἐντεῦθεν καὶ δύο ἐντεῦθεν. Among the New Testament and LXX, there is no evidence to be found where a single number serves to indicate that this number was on one side and on the other side. At long last, there is an answer for an eight-year-old question. Even if the question didn’t necessarily need to be answered, I think that doing so helped to shed some additional light on a few words of Scripture. Note: English translations of the New Testament are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) unless otherwise stated. English translations of the Septuagint come from the Lexham English Septuagint (LES). *An asterisk indicates my own translation."

This came up again tonight. I was told I don't know what is written in the ancient manuscripts. Not that no one knows, just that I am too stupid to know. A new one for me! Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating four were crucified with Jesus. It's late for me, so more to come later, but I'll leave you with this. A key argument for Bullinger, the magician who invented four crucified, is the word "one" does not appear in the Greek of John 19:18. This is true. It is also true that the words "on either/each side" are not in the Greek either.

Is the great apostle "dr." victor wierwille?

Glad you're here, Edgar. Welcome.

As Christian Nationalism feverishly sweeps the country like an epidemic of smallpox (thank God for THAT vaccine!), I wonder if TWI would really get on that bus. Like, really. Though they would enthusiastically echo the homo/transphobia, and would add plenty of four-crucifred, flat-earthiness to many of the movement’s logically fallacious talking points, I suspect they would say the current Christian Nationalist movement is doing it all wrong. And they would say it with that snooty, condescending tone they’ve practiced for so long. I think they would disagree with posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms, because Jews… and the Old Testament and The Law. They would also fight any proposed posting of the Beatitudes, because, again, spoken by a bastard Jew in the Old Testament. (Jew hatred is real with wierwille and his spawn. Not so much with current Christian Nationalists.) I suspect there are other planks in the current theocratic platform with which TWI wouldn’t align. Thoughts?

I looked for a patron saint of eyeballs. Closest I found is St. Lucy. https://mycatholic.life/saints/saints-of-the-liturgical-year/13-december-saint-lucy-of-syracuse-virgin-and-martyr--memorial/ “Saint Lucy is often depicted in sacred art holding her eyes because much later legends state that either the guards gouged her eyes out as torture, or that she gouged her own eyes out so that her suitor would no longer be tempted by their beauty.” I suppose, if one had say, ocular melanoma, one could pray to St. Lucy for healing.

I am reminded to rewatch Beverly Hills Cop (1984). What fun!

Oldies, check out this article on cooking with anchovies. https://www.seriouseats.com/what-to-do-with-anchovies If you’re interested in tinned fish in general for the health benefits, here are two excellent articles diving deeper than AI. https://www.seriouseats.com/where-to-buy-tinned-fish-online-7562948 https://www.seriouseats.com/canned-sardines-love-letter-11806834

I now see the ambiguity in my sentence. To be clear: The reputations and finances of victor wierwille, his top acolytes, and the Ponzi scheme they built were at risk.

If their pro-abortion stance would be problematic for today’s movement, their John-Birchy flat-earthiness might just be enough for a second look and possible seat at the theocratic table.

Pro-choice? Hardly. It was never about a choice. Pro-abortion is a more mathematically accurate and scientifically precise description. Abortion was merely a rational and practical method deployed to mitigate risk of reputational and financial loss.

Those are not the only alternatives. Christian Nationalism is not dissimilar to Jihadism/Islamic Nationalism. It's all theocracy, whether by Doug Wilson or Mullah Omar. Mainstream/Fundamentalist/Conservative Christianity is not Christian Nationalism.

Twinky: Expand your vision, people. The world is not the USA. And the vision presented by news sources in the USA is very biased, one way or the other, with insufficient apolitical reporting, and not much international reporting. There are many countries outside USA - it's true!! It really is!! There are 50 countries in Europe, 54 in Africa, 48 in Asia, 12 in South America. 195 countries altogether, sharing this planetary space. That may mean 195 different cultural outlooks, problems, benefits. Life works much better if we can work collaboratively not competitively. We are all INTERdependent. Not INdependent. So please - take the time to think of what happens elsewhere, and how what goes on in one country - your own, wherever that might be - affects those in other countries. All I'm saying is : be prepared to take another look at whatever you hear and think: the news, scripture/theology, anything you're interested in - from a different angle, perspective. Amen, Sis. Amen

I think her challenges to those traditional assumptions have merit. I don’t disagree with her. Jesus being white is laughable. I am presently convinced by the textual and manuscript evidence against those anti-women verses being authentically Pauline. Paul was a radical. Later scribes couldn’t handle it, so they added verses, even forged whole epistles, to MAKE Paul fit like a glove on their misogynistic hands.

Interesting bit about Cato. It seems the later scribe who added verses 34 and 35 was familiar with his popular injunction.

Doug Wilson’s movement is light in the loafers compared to its Islamic equivalent, Jihadism. But with big enough believing, one day it could be as “spiritually mature” as the Taliban, who has made it illegal for girls and women to talk in public. Voting rights? An issue for mere babes in tha werd.

And if it’s NOT possible, just apply that foundational hermeneutic: if it doesn’t fit, you got to MAKE it fit. Make the numbers whatever they need to be. What a tremendous truth!

They did open this year's festival to the general public. How many of the 3000 were locals, I wonder.

For those interested and concerned, here's a commentary on the Christian Nationalist and self-described "paleo-Confederate," Douglas Wilson. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/14/opinion/douglas-wilson-evangelical-hegseth.html?unlocked_article_code=1.eU8.IF2t.ygovpbbB8QNL&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Warning: may trigger projectile vomit.

Would TWI or victor support the mandatory display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms - a hallmark of contemporary Christian Nationalism? I suspect they wouldn't, since that's a Jew thing and that Jew law doesn't apply to Christians. Any thoughts on this?