Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
You are really grasping. I have heard it preached all my life that the seamless garment was an expensive article of clothing. And common sense is what makes it "probably". Imagine the skill required to make it, to the extent that Clarke has to say it can be proved that ancients were able to do this. In other words, some thought it was too hard to make for people of that time. But to say these people crucifying the Lord wanted it since it was worn by one who healed people is contradictory! They would not have been fighting for his robe, but fighting for Him to be taken off the cross if they really believed He healed people.
It just goes to show how much effort people take to uphold a tradition. Gambling for his robe meant it was expensive.
|
I'm not trying to hold any tradition. You said Clarke agrees it was expensive and I said he stated probably was expensive. How does this apply to Paul and Peter's argument about women?
Threaded Mode
