Micheal Nugent V WC

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.

King Mob

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

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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'?

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

You are. Stop stalling, address the point.
Quote:
"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.

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.

J C

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

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 things 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.

Ok, so then you agree that generation refers to 40 years?
Are you going to try and weasel back on this any time soon?

Then we can continue with the rest of Oldrnwisrs points.

Why then does he specifically say "you will see" and "this generation"?
And not "they will" and "that" generation"?

Where else does Jesus refer to future generations as "this generation"?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

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.:)

This is evidenced by going back and reading all of the replies to you.
You are denying reality at this point.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

This is evidenced by going back and reading all of the replies to you.
You are denying reality at this point.

No ... you have made an unfounded generalistion about me ... and, so far, you have not substantiated it with anything other than another generalisation.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

No ... you have made an unfounded generalistion about me ... and, so far, you have not substantiated it with anything other than another generalisation.

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

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so then you agree that generation refers to 40 years?
Are you going to try and weasel back on this any time soon?

Then we can continue with the rest of Oldrnwisrs points.

Why then does he specifically say "you will see" and "this generation"?
And not "they will" and "that" generation"?

Where else does Jesus refer to future generations as "this generation"?

You're being excessively pedantic.

Its clearly in the context of an End Times parable and clearly states that the generation alive at the commencment of the End Time events stated earlier in Chapter 24 will see them end with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
The 'you' referred to in the Fig Tree Parable prophecy is clearly the people alive, when the Fig Tree Parable prophecy comes true i.e during the End Times.
... and the 'generation' referred to is clearly the generation of people who are also alive at that time.

Matthew 24:32-34New King James Version (NKJV)

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[a] 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.

J C

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

J C wrote: »

You're being excessively pedantic.

:rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

Y
Its clearly in the context of an End Times parable and clearly states that anybody alive at the commencment of the End Time events stated earlier in Chapter 24 will see them end with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

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

J C wrote: »

the 'you' referred to in the Fig Tree Parable prophecy is clearly any person alive, when the Fig Tree Parable prophecy comes true i.e during the End Times.

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.

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

King Mob

J C wrote: »

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

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

J C

King Mob wrote: »

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

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.

J C

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

J C wrote: »

It doesn't say when these (End Time) events are to take place ... and indeed 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 'us' I'm refering to here are the people who are alive when these event start to unfold.

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

J C wrote: »

They are all the same 'you' ... the people alive at the End Time ...

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?

J C wrote: »

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.,

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?

J C wrote: »

What specifically in Mt 23 do you want explained?

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.

J C

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.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

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.

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.

So at the time, it could have happened in that generation, correct?

In that case, how does he make it clear that he wasn't refering to that generation, as per his actual self evident words?

J C wrote: »

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.

That's self contradictory. If you know that it's not going to happen in a particular generation, then you are making a statement about when it will happen, which you are saying is impossible.

Where does it state that it wasn't going to happen in that generation?

J C wrote: »

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

So it was referring specifically to stuff that was happening then, in that generation, correct?

Why then does he refer to "this generation" yet not mean some far future generation like when he does the same thing in the next chapter?

Why would he be making predictions about one topic for that particular generation, then switch to an entirely different topic refering to far future generations? Why would he be using similar language to refer to both these far flung generations? Why would he do so and make no effort to clarify that in 24 he is not referring to that generation even though he says things like "you" and "this generation"? Why would he be so careless about that, but then feel the need to specify how long this would take whenever it did happe n(but then also in a super vague way that makes it look like he was referring to the people he was talking to)?

oldrnwisr

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.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So at the time, it could have happened in that generation, correct?

In that case, how does he make it clear that he wasn't refering to that generation, as per his actual self evident words?

It can only happen in the generation that sees all of the pre-cursor signs of the End Times come to pass.

King Mob wrote: »

That's self contradictory. If you know that it's not going to happen in a particular generation, then you are making a statement about when it will happen, which you are saying is impossible.

Where does it state that it wasn't going to happen in that generation?

Mt 24 gives the signs of the End Times ... it does not say when these signs will manifest themselves.
Which part of this do you not understand?

King Mob wrote: »

So it was referring specifically to stuff that was happening then, in that generation, correct?

Why then does he refer to "this generation" yet not mean some far future generation like when he does the same thing in the next chapter?

Yes Chapter 23 refers to issues occuring right there and then ... the hypocracy of the scribes and pharisees ... while Chapter 24 refers to future events at the End Times.

King Mob wrote: »

Why would he be making predictions about one topic for that particular generation, then switch to an entirely different topic refering to far future generations? Why would he be using similar language to refer to both these far flung generations?
Why would he do so and make no effort to clarify that in 24 he is not referring to that generation even though he says things like "you" and "this generation"? Why would he be so careless about that, but then feel the need to specify how long this would take whenever it did happen(but then also in a super vague way that makes it look like he was referring to the people he was talking to)?

They are two separate Chapters talking about two separate things ... the current hypocracy of the scribes and pharises at that time ... and the future signs of the End Times.

J C

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

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.

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?

J C

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.

looksee

J C wrote: »

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 looking at this section JC. You declined to read Oldrwisr's 'wall of text' on the basis that life is too short. Your own lengthy c/p however you expected us to not only read, but study and interpret. In spite of not having read them you feel free to state that they are anti-Christian. It is very arguable that they are not anti-Christian, simply academic analysis of documents, using other extant documents to glean additional information and cross reference events. Disputing the apostles for example does not deny Jesus, Oldrnwisr acknowledges that the story was written in that way to be a parable that would be more easily understood.

King Mob pointed out that your 'anti-Christian wall of text' statement was a generalisation that you had not substantiated. This is quite correct, you have not offered any argument to show why you consider it anti-Christian, and your response simply repeated the statement.

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.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

It can only happen in the generation that sees all of the pre-cursor signs of the End Times come to pass.

Mt 24 gives the signs of the End Times ... it does not say when these signs will manifest themselves.
Which part of this do you not understand?

I understand it quite well. You don't seem to understand the problem with it. Or you are being willfully blind on the issue.

You admit that they do not specify a time. They also do not clarify that the prediction is not for the current generation. So what was stopping people he was talking to from believing he was referring to them when he said things like "you" and "this generation"?
How, using only the text of the bible, do you know that this isn't what he meant?

J C wrote: »

Yes Chapter 23 refers to issues occuring right there and then ... the hypocracy of the scribes and pharisees ... while Chapter 24 refers to future events at the End Times.

They are two separate Chapters talking about two separate things ... the current hypocracy of the scribes and pharises at that time ... and the future signs of the End Times.

Yes, so you say. But you have avoided the points.
Why would be jump between 2 random unconnected points like that?
And why would he refer to the current generation using the exact same language you contend he uses for far flung generations.

How do you know that he is referring to the current generation in 23, but the far future in 24?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

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).

JC, you seem to have missed the rest of the post there.
I trust you're going back to address it post haste?

oldrnwisr

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?

J C

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. Your own lengthy c/p however you expected us to not only read, but study and interpret. In spite of not having read them you feel free to state that they are anti-Christian. It is very arguable that they are not anti-Christian, simply academic analysis of documents, using other extant documents to glean additional information and cross reference events. Disputing the apostles for example does not deny Jesus, Oldrnwisr acknowledges that the story was written in that way to be a parable that would be more easily understood.

King Mob pointed out that your 'anti-Christian wall of text' statement was a generalisation that you had not substantiated. This is quite correct, you have not offered any argument to show why you consider it anti-Christian, and your response simply repeated the statement.

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.

It is quite legitimate for Oldrnwisr to write as he does and its equally valid for me to call the result anti-Christian ... as it strikes at the very heart of the Christian Faith ... the veracity of the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ and His Apostles as recorded in the Bible.
I believe that the New Testament can be relied upon to be a true account of everything written in it ... notwithstanding numerous attacks on it by various 'scholars' ... I am unaware of any such attacks standing up to close scrutiny.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

. I am unaware of any such attacks standing up to close scrutiny.

Then demonstrate this.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

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).

J C, you seem to have posted this in the wrong forum. The Humour forum is here.Whilst your post isn't particularly funny, in the absence of a "Delusional and Idiotic Posts" forum, it is probably most appropriate.

MrP

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Then demonstrate this.

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

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

J C, you seem to have posted this in the wrong forum. The Humour forum is here.Whilst your post isn't particularly funny, in the absence of a "Delusional and Idiotic Posts" forum, it is probably most appropriate.

MrP

Lets look where this post fits on the pyramid of debating levels ...
... lets see where saying your opponent's post should be made in the "Delusional and Idiotic Posts" forum ... ah yes ... its somewhere below calling your opponent an ass hat !!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

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

Explain and show how Oldrnwisrs points don't stand up to scrutiny. Also again you seem to have missed my post. Please go back and address it or admit you cannot.