Micheal Nugent V WC

King Mob wrote: »

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.

Rather than posting unfounded generalisations about my postings ... please post specific instances of what you say I did.

Of course, the reason you post these unfounded generalisations about me ... is precisely because they are unfounded ... and posting specifics would prove this to be the case.:)

King Mob wrote: »

Lol...
Meanwhile you're going to keep pretending that Oldrnwisr's posts are just meaningless walls of text, right? :rolleyes:

... they are certainly not meaningless ... they are anti-christian 'walls of text'.

King Mob wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Where, specifically, in the bible does it specifically indicate that these events are going to take place in the far future?

The Bible doesn't say when these (End Time) events are to take place ... and indeed it warns us not to set future dates for the End Times ... but Chapter 24 tells us what we will see when the Endtimes are about to come upon us.
... and BTW, the 'we' and 'us' I'm refering to here are also the people who are alive when these event start to unfold.

King Mob wrote: »

That doesn't address why he would refer to a different group of people as "you".
Also it wouldn't make sense for him to specify that the generation of the person who is alive to see the end times won't pass away before all the events took place.

They are all the same 'you' ... the people alive at the End Time ... and it informs us that the End Time events will unfold very rapidy once they start ... which is useful information, particularly for the persecuted Christians, who will be alive at that time.,

King Mob wrote: »

Now, can you explain what was the topic of Matthew 23?

What specifically in Mt 23 do you want explained?

King Mob wrote: »

But where specifically does it state that the end times couldn't or wasn't occur within 40 years of his prediction?

It didn't give a time, one way or the other ... it just gave the signs to look out for when the End Times are imminent. Indeed, verse 36 confirms that nobody can know the time of the End Times..

Matthew 24:36New King James Version (NKJV)

No One Knows the Day or Hour
36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.

King Mob wrote: »

Doesn't address my point.
Where specifically does he indicate clearly that he is not referring to the people he is telling the prophesy to?

Jesus doesn't do this ... He merely gives the signs to look out for ... and states that once these signs comence, the end is nigh ... and will be seen by the generation of people alive at that time, whenever that is.

King Mob wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. If he was giving a time scale, why would he refer to it like that? Why would he make it sound like he's refering to the people he's talking to?

The reverse is actually true ... it would actually make no sense to say that the generation alive at the time of Our Lord would see the End Times in verse Mt 24:34 and then, two verses later, in Mt 24:36 say that nobody can know when this will occur.

King Mob wrote: »

Just a general summary of it's topic would be good. It's ok if you need time to reread it. Or maybe oldrnwisr can explain it to you if you ask nicely.

Mt 23 describes the hypocracy of the scribes and pharisees, at the time when Jesus was on Earth.

... and if oldrnwisr would like it explained by somebody indwelt with the Holy Spirit of the God who wrote it ... I'll be happy to oblige ... or even lead Him to Salvation in Jesus Christ ... all he only needs to say are the words 'Jesus Save me' ... and it shall be.

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.

Well, no. Again your dictionary is evidently faulty or you're working from some alternative definition of concise not known to the rest of the English speaking world.

For example, in post 43 replying to pauldla's challenge that there is no evidence for eyewitnesses to the resurrection (which is true) you reply with a single bible quote with no explanation as to how this refutes pauldla's point.

You see in terms of argumentation:



your "responses" never get any higher than the 4th level of the pyramid "Contradiction" and quite often languish below that level. If you really want people to take you seriously you should aspire to debate on the top three levels.

J C wrote: »

This bible verse is taken from the prophecy of Jesus Christ on the End Times and is specifically part of the parable of the fig tree. Here is the context of the verse to which you refer:-

Matthew 24:29-34New King James Version (NKJV)

The Coming of the Son of Man
29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

The Parable of the Fig Tree
32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

The 'generation' being clearly referred to is the generation who sees the pre-cursors of the End Times referred to in the previous paragraphs of Chapter 24 i.e. when the End Times events begin to occur, we are assured that the time will be short to the second coming of Jesus Christ ... so short that the generation who witnesses the start of these events, will be the same generation that sees them end, with the coming of Jesus Christ.

Do we really have to go through this a second time? You could at least pretend that you read the post where I already explained the mistakes in your argument.

Anyway to reiterate there are three central problems with your argument.

Firstly, the language used in Matthew 23 and 24 don't support the concept of a far flung future generation. If Jesus or the evangelists writing about Jesus had really intended to mean a future generation of people not composed of those Jesus was talking to then he would have used the words "they" and "that generation" rather than this generation. Using words like "this generation" when talking to a group of people and not qualifying his remarks only leads to one conclusion, that he is talking about events which will happen to the people he is talking to.

Secondly, the New Testament writers show no signs of believing in some long distant end times. Every one of them shows that their belief was the second coming was imminent within their own lives. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10, James in James 5, even the authors of Hebrews and Peter.

Thirdly, the idea of a far-off future end times being prophesied by Jesus runs counter to the prophetic fulfillment portrait that Matthew works so hard to invent. He borrows and misapplies messianic "prophecies" like Isaiah 7:14 and Zechariah 9:9 and outright fabricates prophecies like Matthew 2:23. His intention is to portray Jesus as the Jewish messiah, the fulfillment of the Old Testament expectation for a powerful religious and spiritual leader to lead the Jewish people into a new era of glory and prosperity. The other messianic prophecies like 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) or that he would create a single world government in Israel as stated in Isaiah 2:2-4, 11:10 and 42:1. The idea of a Messiah who wouldn't return for thousands of years is a concept which is alien, not only to the portrait of Matthew's gospel but also the Jewish christians who would have read Matthew's gospel.

J C wrote: »

Mt 23 describes the hypocracy of the scribes and pharisees, at the time when Jesus was on Earth.

Well, here's the thing. In Matthew 23, Jesus says:

"Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."
Matthew 23:36
and then in Matthew 24 he says:

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

So you expect us to believe that the repetitive language in the two chapters bears no connection whatsoever to each other. Jesus uses the same language at the same time talking to the same group of people. At no point does Jesus offer any qualifiers or indications that the two uses of the word generation are different.

Ultimately, every indication from Matthew's gospel and the other New Testament writers is that the meaning of Jesus prophecy is a physical return of Jesus to lead Israel to glory while those he spoke to before his death were still alive. All you've offered in response is "no that's wrong" without any effort to explain why.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, no. Again your dictionary is evidently faulty or you're working from some alternative definition of concise not known to the rest of the English speaking world.

For example, in post 43 replying to pauldla's challenge that there is no evidence for eyewitnesses to the resurrection (which is true) you reply with a single bible quote with no explanation as to how this refutes pauldla's point.

You see in terms of argumentation:



your "responses" never get any higher than the 4th level of the pyramid "Contradiction" and quite often languish below that level. If you really want people to take you seriously you should aspire to debate on the top three levels.

I usually operate within the top three levels of the pyramid by providing either a refution or a counter argument in my postings. The posting you refer to provided a Bibical refutation of the point made by Paudla (that there were no eyewitnesses to the resurrection).

looksee wrote: »

Really JC, this is a forum called Atheism and Agnosicism. Why would you expect to find support for Christianity here? Why would you come and argue here if all you want is confirmation of your views?

I don't expect any support here ... I was answering a post string originally started by King Mob.
Here is the full exchange to put the whole thing in context:-

Originally Posted by King Mob

Meanwhile you're going to keep pretending that Oldrnwisr's posts are just meaningless walls of text, right?

J C
... they are certainly not meaningless ... they are anti-christian 'walls of text'.

King Mob
Which is a generalisation that you have not substantiated in any way.

J C
These postings are clearly attempting to invalidate the Word of Jesus Christ in the Bible ... which is anti-Christ.
I don't think that oldrnwisr would disagree with this BTW.

Just one minor rejoinder regarding the point below which I overlooked earlier

J C wrote: »

These postings are clearly attempting to invalidate the Word of Jesus Christ in the Bible ... which is anti-Christ.
I don't think that oldrnwisr would disagree with this BTW.

Well then you'd be wrong. Again.

Firstly, these postings aren't "attempting to invalidate the Words of Jesus Christ in the Bible", they are simply laying out what is evidentially true, if objective facts and reality invalidate the words of Jesus well that's just bad luck.

For example, Christians hold to the tradition that Matthew was the first (earliest) gospel writer and that he is also Matthew, the tax collector, a disciple of Jesus mentioned in the gospels. However, we know from textual scholarship that this is not true. Approximately 98% of Matthew's gospel is copied verbatim from Mark and was written in a literarily sophisticated greek by a Jewish christian probably living in Antioch in Syria (based on the increased frequency of references to it in Matthew's gospel). A gospel written by a person who actually witnessed the events it depicts wouldn't need to rely on somebody else to tell their story. It also contains factual mistakes that someone who would have been an eyewitness would not have made.

Another example is the nativity of Jesus. The nativity is strangely absent from Mark, the earliest gospel. It is introduced by Matthew who makes it happen in Bethlehem because of a misapplied OT prophecy. It is also placed in the days of Herod which history tells us must have been on or earlier than 4BCE (the date of Herod's death). Luke's gospel then uses Mark's identification of Jesus as a Nazarene and copies Matthew's nativity. However in order to make the Markan and Matthean narratives fit together he comes up with a reason to have Joseph and Mary travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, a census be taken of "all the inhabited earth". This census happens under Quirinius, who was appointed governor in 6CE. Now there really was a census, nothing of the magnitude Luke speaks about but a local census for taxation purposes towards the end of 6CE. This creates an irreconcilable difference of 10+ years between the two nativity accounts.


These posts aren't intended to be anti-Christian, they are simply laying out what is objectively and demonstrably true in relation to the history and scholarship of the New Testament. Unfortunately, most Christians either don't know or when faced with the facts don't want to know. They're much happier in their delusion. As Tommy Lee Jones once said:

"Humans, for the most part, don’t have a clue. They don’t want or need one, either. They’re happy. They think they have a good bead on things."

You see, I didn't set out on this subject originally to validate or invalidate anything. I originally set out to see if the accounts about Jesus in the New Testament were true or could be assumed to be true based on available evidence. I guess it was the scientist in me that was responsible. Richard Feynman explains it quite well:

"And also another thing has to do with the question of how do you find out if something is true? And if you have all these theories of the different religions and all different theories about the thing then you begin to wonder…once you start doubting… just like you are supposed to doubt, you asked me if science is true, no no we don’t know what is true…no no we don’t know, we are trying ……start out understanding religion by saying everything is possibly wrong, let us see, as soon as you do that you start sliding down an edge which is harder to recover from."

The bolded section above kinda summarises my relationship with Christianity and the New Testament. The more I tried to find out whether the Jesus story was true, the more it fell completely and utterly apart, like a house of cards.

looksee wrote: »

Just looking at this section JC. You declined to read Oldrwisr's 'wall of text' on the basis that life is too short. ...

In fact whether they are anti-Christian or not is another diversion that you have introduced and is a weak opt-out of the discussion.

Just as an FYI, looksee, the "life is too short" comment is a tactic of JC's. It's one he's used before in the evolution thread here coincidentally in response to a post of mine. He seems to use it as a kind of escape clause from honest debate.


Oh, and one last thing. JC, as interesting as these little tangents about anti-Christian posts and Jesus' failed prophecies have been we've wandered significantly from the original topic, i.e. evidence for Jesus resurrection. Perhaps we can look forward to some evidence from you to support this. Before the End times maybe?

King Mob wrote: »

Then demonstrate this.

How can I demonstrate something I am not aware of ... and which I believe doesn't even exist?