Micheal Nugent V WC

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, there aren't 30,000 different interpretations, or anything like.

There are approx 30,000 different Christian denominations, but they are not all distinguished by different biblical interpretations. A lot of them are divided on purely geographical grounds - the Church of Ireland and the Church of England, to take an obvious example, subscribe to the same statement of faith - and a lot are divided on the basis of, e.g., different models of church government (episcopal vs. presbyterian vs. congregational) or the different ethnic communities they serve or a host of other factors.

Ok. That's a reasonable point. But would you agree that there are, within those denominations still many different interpretations, and that each different interpretation weakens the suggestion that the meaning of the bible is self-evident?

MrP

spacecoyote

J C wrote: »

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

Wait a minute, I have to bone up on my bible reading, that sounds like Jesus was trying to enter into a suicide pact with his disciples :eek:

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

For somebody who claims to know it all ... your magnanimity is somewhat deficient - and I can see why ... because you're the one who is actually wrong.

Here are the said passages of scripture that you are referring to (emphasis mine):-

(wall of blue text redacted)

I'm not exactly sure what your intention was with that last post. It certainly wasn't a counter-argument to my last post and wasn't really an argument for or against anything. All it did was copy and paste a block of text from those chapters along with the section headings that biblegateway.com insert to help readers. There was no information content in that post at all.
However, since you insist on keeping up this charade, a few more points to hammer the point home.


1. The origin of "generation"

As I've already pointed out, the gospel writers, Paul and the other anonymous writers of the New Testament believed that Jesus' return would come within one generation of the people alive during Jesus' ministry. As time went on the language that these writers used to describe this return gradually softened and became more desperate, from Paul's insistence of an imminent return in 1 Thessalonians to the more vague language of Philippians to the mocking tone of 2 Peter. Even well into the 2nd century there were still attempts to twist the gospels to make the literal generation prophecy work.
However within the next century these attempts became more and more futile. Eventually Jerome in an attempt to reoncile the divinity of Jesus with the failed prophecy of a second coming within one generation became the first person to use generation as modern Christians do in the sense of "the lifetime of the Jewish race". However, there are problems with Jerome's idea.
Firstly, if Jesus (or Matthew) really had intended to mean race then he would have used the word genos rather than genea.
Secondly, in total the word genea or it's different literary forms (geneai, genean, geneais etc.) is used 43 times. In every one of these occurrences, the word is used to refer to either the generation of people that Jesus is speaking to/about or to a specific past generation. Nowhere is it used to convey the meaning of a time period other than 40 years.
Thirdly, in Matthew 24 and its preceding chapter, Jesus uses the terms "this generation" and "you" together. If his real intention was to speak about an event which was still thousands of years in the future then he would have said "that generation" and "they" instead which would be clearer.


2. The Messiah problem

One of the distinguishing features of Matthew's gospel when compared to Mark's (which it borrows from) is that Matthew's extra material mostly comes in the form of passages borrowed from the Old Testament designed to make it look as if Jesus fulfilled a number of Messianic prophecies from the Old Testament. These include being born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), being born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), riding into Jerusalem on a horse and donkey (Zechariah 9:9). However, because Matthew is using the Septuagint as his source material and because he doesn't understand Hebrew, he gets almost all of these prophecies wrong.
The truth of these prophecies, however is less important than Matthew's objective in using them, to portray Jesus as the long awaited Jewish messiah. However, even taking into account Matthew's botched use of the Old Testament we can see that according to the standards of actual Messianic prophecies Jesus wasn't the Messiah.
Firstly, the Messiah would be a descendant of David as stated in Jeremiah 23:5

"“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord, “When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land."

While both Matthew and Luke make a genealogical connection between Jesus and David, it should be noted that a) their genealogical records don't agree with each other (Matthew's being an edited version of the one found in Chronicles) and b) Jesus is connected to David through Joseph who he wasn't actually biologically descended from, which even Matthew acknowledges in 1:16.

Secondly, the Messiah would be knowledgeable and observant of the Old Testament laws as outlined in Isaiah 11:2-5. While Jesus was certainly knowledgeable, observant he wasn't. He violates the dietary laws in Mark 7:18-19, the Sabbath law in Matthew 12:3-5, the commandment to honour your father and mother in Matthew 12:46-50 and the circumcision law in John 7:22-24.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, in several places the Old Testament authors speak about the Messiah's political prowess in addition to his spiritual ones. In Isaiah 11:11-12, Hosea 3:4-5 and Jeremiah 23:7-8 and 30:3 it is stated that the Messiah will reunite the Jews in Israel and restore Jerusalem. In Isaiah 2:2-4, 11:10 and 42:1, it is stated that the Messiah would create a single world government in Israel. Furthermore, despite the Christian claims about Jesus' body as a temple, the Old Testament makes it clear that the Messiah would rebuild a physical temple in Jerusalem and resume sacrifices in it (Jeremiah 33:17-18, Ezekiel 37:27-28 and Malachi 3:3-4). Jesus never accomplishes any of this and his death runs counter to the idea of the Messiah as a combined spiritual and political leader ushering Jerusalem into a new era of peace.

Speaking of peace, the arrival of the Messiah is supposed to herald the beginning of the Messianic age, accompanied by a number of signs. These include an era of perpetual peace (Isaiah 2:4), predators and prey will coexist peacefully (Isaiah 11:6), the entire human race worshipping Yahweh (Zechariah 14:9) and following all his laws (Ezekiel 37:24). None of these, obviously, came to pass, then or at any time since.

As far as the prophecy in Matthew 24 goes, the story needs to be placed in it's proper socio-political climate. Matthew 24 is the conclusion of a story begun in Matthew 23 which constitutes a diatribe by Jesus against the Pharisees. Jesus begins by talking about the Pharisees and how they have assumed an air of (false) religious authority. In Matthew 23:2-3 he states:

“The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them."

Jesus then goes on to attack them directly in verse 13:

"“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."

and prophesy their eventual downfall:

"Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

This last verse is a reference to the destruction of the second temple in 70CE. Jesus is seen as predicting the downfall of the Pharisees within one generation of his death with his subsequent return.
The way we know this is twofold. Firstly, it fits within the character of the Messiah as predicted by the actual Messianic prophecies of the OT. As highlighted above, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Malachi all speak of the Messiah rebuilding a physical temple and resuming sacrifices in it. This is how the Jews saw the Messiah (and how Jesus saw himself according to the gospel writers) as someone who would come along to be a spiritual and political leader and transform Israel into a powerful nation. Secondly, we see the repetition of language from Matthew 23 to Matthew 24:

"Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."
Matthew 23:36

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
Matthew 24:34

Here we can see three distinct phrases all repeated to show us what the true meaning of Jesus prophecy was.

One final point, it is also a pretty safe bet that this "prediction" was in reality a fabrication on the part of the gospel writers. Given that Mark's gospel was only completed after the destruction of the temple and Matthew writing over a decade later, expands on that part of Mark's gospel, it is more likely that this "prediction" was really an example of postdiction.


3. Jesus - Coming Soon

One of the more humourous aspects of this "failed prophecy" is how Christians, all the way back to the early Church leaders, just can't help trying to make it work. Ever since the 2nd century and Irenaeus Christians have been predicting dates for Jesus eventual return. Irenaeus along with Hippolytus of Rome and Sextus Julius Africanus all predicted a return date of 500CE. Then we had Beatus of Liebana who said 793, followed by Pope Sylvester II who said 1000, then it became 1260, 1370, 1504, 1524, 1533 and so on. You can see the full list of all the failed prognosticators here.


As I've pointed out in detail, the portrait of Jesus created by the gospel writers was that of an apocalyptic prophet, someone deeply angry with and distrustful of Pharasaic Judaism who was supposed to have returned as the promised Jewish Messiah to lead Israel into an era of peace, prosperity and power. Unfortunately, here in the real world, Jesus' prediction turned out to be a fabrication.

Oh, and while we're here two other points about this debate. Firstly, the quip of me claiming to know it all is well, ironic. I never claimed to know it all and in fact I'm still learning all the time. However our interaction on this topic has reminded me of something Aron Ra once said in his Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series:

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To adequately understand evolution, you not only have to understand how to be scientific, (which is the real trick for most people) but you also have to know something about cellular biology, genetics, and anatomy, geology, particularly paleontology, as well as environmental systems, tectonics, atomic chemistry, and especially taxonomy, which most people don’t know squat about at all. Most people who accept evolution also tend to know a whole lot about cosmology, geography, history, sociology, politics, and of course, religion.
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But to believe in creationism, you don’t have to know anything about anything, and its better if you don’t! Because creationism relies on ignorance.

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You could easily substitute "the bible" for both evolution and creationism above. To understand the bible takes a lot of effort, over the years of studying the Jesus story I've read countless books by people like Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, Raymond Brown, Mark Goodacre, J.D. Crossan, Denis MacDonald and Richard Carrier not to mention the NASB and Young's Literal Translation of the Bible as well as picking up a rudimentary understanding of Greek, Hebrew, Palestinian geography, Jewish laws and customs, textual scholarship, paleography and Greek literature. However, to believe in the bible all it takes is ignorance something that you've shown in abundance with crude one line answers and glib dismissals.

Secondly, Bart Ehrman once described in a lecture the three ways of reading the Bible: vertically, horizontally and the Ouija board way. Many (I would stretch to most Christians) read the bible in the ouija board way, using the bible as if it's some kind of magic 8-ball. Oh I'm sad I'll skip to this verse. I'm thankful I'll read this verse. I'm confused I'll read this verse. Even bible publishers like The Gideons have pandered to this kind of crap.
The second way which anyone who really wants to learn about the bible reads it is vertically, that is cover to cover from start to finish. This certainly helps you gain a better understanding but it's only the beginning. To really understand the bible you need to read it horizontally, that is comparing the gospels with each other to see where they agree and where there are contradictions and what the impact of those differences are. Unfortunately, very little Christians outside the realm of academia ever read the Bible this way.


[/FONT]

Michael Nugent

Tickets for this have been available from 10 am this morning on Eventbrite.

They are free but you have to reserve them.

As if now, there are only 60 left out of 250.

If you want to reserve one, you can do so at

https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/does-god-exist-debate-between-michael-nugent-and-william-lane-craig-tickets-32575235406

.

oldrnwisr

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm not exactly sure what your intention was with that last post. It certainly wasn't a counter-argument to my last post and wasn't really an argument for or against anything. All it did was copy and paste a block of text from those chapters along with the section headings that biblegateway.com insert to help readers. There was no information content in that post at all.
However, since you insist on keeping up this charade, a few more points to hammer the point home.

And remember JC all of this ass kicking you're receiving is on an aside point you decided to jump on.
You proclaimed that Jesus had no failed prophecies. And this was part of your explanation of how a cult with failed prophecies would fall apart.
Which in turn was an aside of your claim that Christianity is evidentially true because people wouldn't believe in it otherwise.
Which in turn was an aside of your claim that the resurrection is proven with eye witnesses.
And this in turn was your defense for your claim that you only believe things that are evidentially true.

At every single level of this train you have been shown to be utterly wrong in every way. You either posted empty assertions backed up with nothing or ignore points completely. You have abandoned each and every one of your claims up to this point because you cannot defend them.

Michael Nugent

Update: All 250 tickets for this debate have now gone, but there are now another 250 free tickets available for an overflow room, beside the main debate room, where the debate will be live streamed.

If you are in this room, you can take still part in the Q&A session and attend the reception after the debate.

You can reserve an overflow room ticket at

https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/does-god-exist-debate-between-michael-nugent-and-william-lane-craig-tickets-32575235406

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Ok. That's a reasonable point. But would you agree that there are, within those denominations still many different interpretations, and that each different interpretation weakens the suggestion that the meaning of the bible is self-evident?

MrP

Oh, sure, I wouldn't for an instant subscribe to the view that "the meaning of the bible is self-evident". The bible is a collection of varied text composed by different people in different circumstances over many thousands of years, employing a huge variety of literary genres. While there are certainly some passages in the bible whose meaning could reasonably be described as "self-evident", there are other passages that are layered, nuanced, delphic, even cryptic.

I just don't think the number and diversity of Christian denominations is particularly strong evidence of the fact. Much better evidence can be had simply by opening a bible and looking at it.

recedite

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Update: All 250 tickets for this debate have now gone, but there are now another 250 free tickets available for an overflow room, beside the main debate room, where the debate will be live streamed.

If you are in this room, you can take still part in the Q&A session and attend the reception after the debate.

You can reserve an overflow room ticket at

https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/does-god-exist-debate-between-michael-nugent-and-william-lane-craig-tickets-32575235406

All 250 tickets at the main event sold out on the first day? That's a surprisingly brisk take up.
What you going to wear? May I suggest a red polo shirt.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

All 250 tickets at the main event sold out on the first day? That's a surprisingly brisk take up.

Just to clarify - strictly speaking the tickets weren't "sold out"; the event is free. They were "snapped up", maybe.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Just to clarify - strictly speaking the tickets weren't "sold out"; the event is free. They were "snapped up", maybe.

you might want to get onto the website, they think the tickets are "sold out" :pac:

https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/does-god-exist-debate-between-michael-nugent-and-william-lane-craig-tickets-32575235406#tickets

General Public tickets

Free

Sold Out

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Just to clarify - strictly speaking the tickets weren't "sold out"; the event is free. They were "snapped up", maybe.

Even for you that's picky.

MrP

nozzferrahhtoo

MrPudding wrote: »

Even for you that's picky.

Linguistic pedantry, keeping dead conversations going since 10000 BC

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Linguistic pedantry, keeping dead conversations going since 10000 BC

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Even for you that's picky.

MrP

I just didn't want anybody to be deterred from attending by the thought that they might have to pay.

Or the thread to be derailed into a "who's profiting from this?" discussion.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

And remember JC all of this ass kicking you're receiving is on an aside point you decided to jump on.

Reams and reams of nice sounding prose (while ironically complaining that I posted too many biblical verses) does not an 'ass kicking' make.

If oldrnwisr wants to discuss this stuff, he needs to stop being amazed with the exuberance of his own verbosity ... and start making short precise points to which I will gladly respond.:)

looksee

J C wrote: »

Reams and reams of nice sounding prose (while ironically complaining that I posted too many biblical verses) does not an 'ass kicking' make.

If oldrnwisr wants to discuss this stuff, he needs to stop being amazed with the exuberance of his own verbosity ... and start making short precise points to which I will gladly respond.:)

Mod The thing is JC, O's nice sounding prose is HIS prose, while biblical quotes are copy/paste, which, unaccompanied, does not a discussion make.

robindch

J C wrote: »

If oldrnwisr wants to discuss this stuff, he needs to stop being amazed with the exuberance of his own verbosity ... and start making short precise points to which I will gladly respond.:)

As looksee points out, oldrnwisr is answering your questions, comprehensively and comprehensibly. You don't appear interested in replying to these responses (which, btw, is likely to be formally contra-charter behaviour shortly).

Anyhow, while this behaviour of yours is irritating for most posters here, it is allowed for the time being as it has to benefits - 1) we get to read oldrnwisr's excellent and learned replies and 2) your refusal to engage discredits your point of view - a point of view which most posters here are likely to find uninformed, where it's not idiotic. And that self-defeating prose is, I suspect, fine with most posters, most of the time.

J C

J C wrote: »

Reams and reams of nice sounding prose (while ironically complaining that I posted too many biblical verses) does not an 'ass kicking' make.

This is rather pathetic JC, even for you.
As I and other have explained, it's quality over quantity. You posted a wall of text you copy pasted from a website and offered nothing to explain it or show how it counters anyone's points. It offered nothing in the way of supporting, biblical and extra-biblical information for your point. It offered nothing to show that you actually understood the passage.

Meanwhile, Oldrnwisr's post had all of those things plus was well researched, concise, well written and pleasurable to read. You never post like that.

J C wrote: »

If oldrnwisr wants to discuss this stuff, he needs to stop being amazed with the exuberance of his own verbosity ... and start making short precise points to which I will gladly respond.:)

This is unlikely as I and others have been making short precise points and you've ignored all of them. You'd probably just be pretending that olds' posts didn't exist as well if that didn't make you look even more pathetic than now. (Though it is a bit of a contest.)

But if you are having difficulty with his posts, maybe you should continue what you had tried to do previously: Pick out particular points you think you can counter and address them. (But you should also then explain that you aren't addressing other points, as ignoring them is rather rude, and you are very concerned about being polite.)

For example, I'm still interested to see how you can weasel out of Jesus' failed prediction.
You said that the bible is self explanatory, but as read he says the word "generation".
I'm curious as to how this word switches definition when the bible and Matthew in the same chapter precisely define it as about 40 years. And I'm curious as to how this is "self-explanatory" when it doesn't seem to be explained in the bible at all....

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

I just didn't want anybody to be deterred from attending by the thought that they might have to pay.

Or the thread to be derailed into a "who's profiting from this?" discussion.

I was only messing, hence the .

MrP

J C

robindch wrote: »

As looksee points out, oldrnwisr is answering your questions, comprehensively and comprehensibly. You don't appear interested in replying to these responses (which, btw, is likely to be formally contra-charter behaviour shortly).

Anyhow, while this behaviour of yours is irritating for most posters here, it is allowed for the time being as it has to benefits - 1) we get to read oldrnwisr's excellent and learned replies and 2) your refusal to engage discredits your point of view - a point of view which most posters here are likely to find uninformed, where it's not idiotic. And that self-defeating prose is, I suspect, fine with most posters, most of the time.

... but here's the thing ... I do answer posts (in great detail) ... it's oldrnwisr who quotes 2-3 lines of my post and then proceeds to 'write a book' of his own prose in reply.
Is it OK Robin, if I do the same? ... quote 2-3 lines of somebody's post and proceed to write hundreds of words in reply ... similar to 'oldrnwisr's excellent and learned replies', as you call them.
... or are 'excellent and learned replies' only possible, in your opinion, when Atheists are spouting Anti-christian doggerel ?


... and since when is the standard for acceptable posting on the Boards set by whether fellow posters find them 'irritating' or 'uninformed' or not ... these are subjective determinations that are totally 'in the eye of the beholder'.
... on an atheist forum any posting by a Christian defending their beliefs could be 'irritating' or 'uninformed' to an atheist reading them ... and will the same standards apply to posting on the Christianity forum, whereby if Christian posters find any postings on this Forum 'irritating' or 'uninformed'' they will also be deemed to be unacceptable there?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

This is rather pathetic JC, even for you.
As I and other have explained, it's quality over quantity. You posted a wall of text you copy pasted from a website and offered nothing to explain it or show how it counters anyone's points. It offered nothing in the way of supporting, biblical and extra-biblical information for your point. It offered nothing to show that you actually understood the passage.

Meanwhile, Oldrnwisr's post had all of those things plus was well researched, concise, well written and pleasurable to read. You never post like that.

I guess beauty (and the quality of postings on the Boards.ie) are in the eye of the beholder.
Even though many of Oldrnwisr's posts could be considered for a booker prize, because they are so long-winded ... this doesn't mean that my short concise postings are of any poorer quality, just because they don't use as much virtual 'ink'.:)

King Mob wrote: »

This is unlikely as I and others have been making short precise points and you've ignored all of them.

I have made reasoned, precise and concise replies to every post, as time and personal interest has permitted me.
I am not going to even attempt to answer 'walls of text' such as Oldrnwisr has posted.

King Mob wrote: »

I'm still interested to see how you can weasel out of Jesus' failed prediction.
You said that the bible is self explanatory, but as read he says the word "generation".
I'm curious as to how this word switches definition when the bible and Matthew in the same chapter precisely define it as about 40 years. And I'm curious as to how this is "self-explanatory" when it doesn't seem to be explained in the bible at all....

Please explain what you mean by this, quoting chapter and verse for your contention and I will gladly reply.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Please explain what you mean by this, quoting chapter and verse for your contention and I will gladly reply.

Read Oldrnwisr's post. Answer that.

MrP

J C

J C wrote: »

I guess beauty (and the quality of postings on the Boards.ie) are in the eye of the beholder.
Even though many of Oldrnwisr's posts could be considered for a booker prize, because they are so long-winded ... this doesn't mean that my short concise postings are of any poorer quality, just because they don't use as much virtual 'ink'.:)

Lol. No JC, his posts aren't better than yours because they are longer. it's because they are better and contain actual points.

J C wrote: »

I have made reasoned, precise and concise replies to every post, as time and personal interest has permitted me.

Lol, horse****.
You have not done that once.

You have ignored every point and you are now proudly proclaiming you will not address more points as if it doesn't make you look like a fool.

J C wrote: »

I am not going to even attempt to answer 'walls of text' such as Oldrnwisr has posted.

So, no change then.

J C wrote: »

Please explain what you mean by this, quoting chapter and verse for your contention and I will gladly reply.

Well again, Oldrwinsr outlined this very directly and concisely

Here in point one:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102844003&postcount=94

And here in point two:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102830534&postcount=83

I will sum it up for you, in case you have difficulty:

The word generation means 40-ish years by common definition.
Oldrnwisr points out that that's the definition used by the bible very clearly. Specifically in passages like Hebrews 3:8-10 and specifically in Matthew 1:17

Nowhere in the bible does the word generation ever mean what you have decided it means.
So please explain this and show another example where the bible refers to "generation" to mean anything other than 40 years.

Oldrnwisr's posts go into much deeper detail of course, but we don't want to overtax you with too many points.

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

Reams and reams of nice sounding prose (while ironically complaining that I posted too many biblical verses) does not an 'ass kicking' make.

If oldrnwisr wants to discuss this stuff, he needs to stop being amazed with the exuberance of his own verbosity ... and start making short precise points to which I will gladly respond.:)

Well, which part of your own religion would you like explained to you in greater detail?

Is it:

• The fact that the biographical sources for Jesus (the gospels & Acts) are all internally and externally anonymous.
• The fact that of the 27 books of the New Testament, only 7 of them were written by who they claim to be.
• The fact that the supposed divinely inspired word of God makes references to books which aren't divinely inspired including exhortations to read said books.
• The fact that the gospels contain later forged additions, most notably the resurrection story in Mark 16:9-20.
• The fact that we don't have any reliable sources for the lives of the apostles either before or after the crucifixion which makes their historicity not to mention their supposed martyrdom highly questionable.
• The fact that the gospels are littered with internal and external contradictions, factual mistakes and stories plagiarised from Greek, Egyptian & Sumerian mythology as well as the Old Testament.
• The fact that even the earliest of the gospels is at least four decades after the death of Jesus while the rest of the gospels span three decades up to the end of the 1st century.
• The fact that we don't even possess the original manuscripts of any of the biographical sources for Jesus.
• The fact that there are no contempraneous sources for the existence of Jesus.
• The fact that some of the most prominent historical writers of the period have nothing to say about Jesus despite his supposed fame in the gospels.
• The fact that none of the gospels bear the hallmarks of even trying to appear as eyewitness accounts.

So, this is a fairly small list of points that have been covered so far and I've put them in bullet point form to make them easier to digest. So which ones would you like to deal with?

J C wrote: »

... but here's the thing ... I do answer posts (in great detail) ... it's oldrnwisr who quotes 2-3 lines of my post and then proceeds to 'write a book' of his own prose in reply.
Is it OK Robin, if I do the same? ... quote 2-3 lines of somebody's post and proceed to write hundreds of words in reply ... similar to 'oldrnwisr's excellent and learned replies', as you call them.
... or are 'excellent and learned replies' only possible, in your opinion, when Atheists are spouting Anti-christian doggerel ?

Great detail, eh?

Well, let's see.

Since we started down this tangent you have responded with

• A 2 line response in post 41
• A copy/paste of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 with no explanation of your own in post 43
• A link dump to two pages from an apologetics website with no explanation from you in post 46.
• A four-point reply in post 53 quoting three different bible passages, none of which were connected to anything I posted or engaged with any of the point's I've made.
• A 2 line reply to looksee in post 54.
• A 2 line reply to marienbad in post 56
• A five-point response to King Mob consisting of four one-line answers and a 2 line answer in post 61
• A 1 line response to King Mob in post 65
• A 1 line response to pauldla in post 72
• A 1 line response to looksee in post 74
• A 1 line response to me in post 76
• A 2 line response to looksee in post 77
• A 1 line response to King Mob in post 79
• A three-point response of 3 one line answers to King Mob in post 81
• A copy/paste dump of three bible passages with no explanation from you in post 84

If that's what you call "great detail" then you need a new dictionary because the one you've got is clearly broken. So far your entire contribution to this topic doesn't come close to being a single detailed reply. Which is a good thing really, because as robindch points out the more you continue this behaviour the more you show how dishonest and feeble christian apologetics really is.

oldrnwisr

oldrnwisr wrote: »

[*]The fact that we don't have any reliable sources for the lives of the apostles either before or after the crucifixion which makes their historicity not to mention their supposed martyrdom highly questionable.

This one, since it was his initial point to show that the Christianity was evidentially true and cause he doesn't seem to want to go back to that point since he abandoned it.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Read Oldrnwisr's post. Answer that.

MrP

(This) life is too short for that luxury.:)

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. No JC, his posts aren't better than yours because they are longer. it's because they are better and contain actual points.


Lol, horse****.
You have not done that once.

You have ignored every point and you are now proudly proclaiming you will not address more points as if it doesn't make you look like a fool.

So, no change then.

Well again, Oldrwinsr outlined this very directly and concisely

Here in point one:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102844003&postcount=94

And here in point two:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102830534&postcount=83

I will sum it up for you, in case you have difficulty:

The word generation means 40-ish years by common definition.
Oldrnwisr points out that that's the definition used by the bible very clearly. Specifically in passages like Hebrews 3:8-10 and specifically in Matthew 1:17

Nowhere in the bible does the word generation ever mean what you have decided it means.
So please explain this and show another example where the bible refers to "generation" to mean anything other than 40 years.

Oldrnwisr's posts go into much deeper detail of course, but we don't want to overtax you with too many points.

Who is arguing that 'generation' doesn't mean 'generation'?

J C

J C wrote: »

Who is arguing that 'generation' doesn't mean 'generation'?

You are. Stop stalling, address the point.

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
Matthew 24:34

These things did not take place in that generation.
Generation = 40 years.

Jesus's prophecy failed.

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, which part of your own religion would you like explained to you in greater detail?

Is it:

• The fact that the biographical sources for Jesus (the gospels & Acts) are all internally and externally anonymous.
• The fact that of the 27 books of the New Testament, only 7 of them were written by who they claim to be.
• The fact that the supposed divinely inspired word of God makes references to books which aren't divinely inspired including exhortations to read said books.
• The fact that the gospels contain later forged additions, most notably the resurrection story in Mark 16:9-20.
• The fact that we don't have any reliable sources for the lives of the apostles either before or after the crucifixion which makes their historicity not to mention their supposed martyrdom highly questionable.
• The fact that the gospels are littered with internal and external contradictions, factual mistakes and stories plagiarised from Greek, Egyptian & Sumerian mythology as well as the Old Testament.
• The fact that even the earliest of the gospels is at least four decades after the death of Jesus while the rest of the gospels span three decades up to the end of the 1st century.
• The fact that we don't even possess the original manuscripts of any of the biographical sources for Jesus.
• The fact that there are no contempraneous sources for the existence of Jesus.
• The fact that some of the most prominent historical writers of the period have nothing to say about Jesus despite his supposed fame in the gospels.
• The fact that none of the gospels bear the hallmarks of even trying to appear as eyewitness accounts.

So, this is a fairly small list of points that have been covered so far and I've put them in bullet point form to make them easier to digest. So which ones would you like to deal with?





Great detail, eh?

Well, let's see.

Since we started down this tangent you have responded with

• A 2 line response in post 41
• A copy/paste of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 with no explanation of your own in post 43
• A link dump to two pages from an apologetics website with no explanation from you in post 46.
• A four-point reply in post 53 quoting three different bible passages, none of which were connected to anything I posted or engaged with any of the point's I've made.
• A 2 line reply to looksee in post 54.
• A 2 line reply to marienbad in post 56
• A five-point response to King Mob consisting of four one-line answers and a 2 line answer in post 61
• A 1 line response to King Mob in post 65
• A 1 line response to pauldla in post 72
• A 1 line response to looksee in post 74
• A 1 line response to me in post 76
• A 2 line response to looksee in post 77
• A 1 line response to King Mob in post 79
• A three-point response of 3 one line answers to King Mob in post 81
• A copy/paste dump of three bible passages with no explanation from you in post 84

If that's what you call "great detail" then you need a new dictionary because the one you've got is clearly broken. So far your entire contribution to this topic doesn't come close to being a single detailed reply. Which is a good thing really, because as robindch points out the more you continue this behaviour the more you show how dishonest and feeble christian apologetics really is.

That was the concise dimension to my postings ... and in this regard, short concise postings are easier to understand and reply to ... while long-winded rambling posts actually frustrate debate.

J C

J C wrote: »

That was the concise dimension to my postings ... and in this regard, short concise postings are easier to understand and reply to ... while long-winded rambling posts actually frustrate debate.

Your posts address exactly nothing and are either meaningless, or are you dodging from explaining what the meaning was to you previous point.

This also excludes all of the points from my and others posts that you edit out and pretend don't exist.