Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Do something about it

Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has an excellent article on “uncivil” civil rights activism:  No Pleasure Ride on a Unicorn: The case for “uncivil” civil rights activism”.

As repeat readers will know, I advocate for being the “rough men” that do their best to stand up and defend everyone’s rights.  The pertinent quote has been attributed to many, from Orwell, to Kipling to Churchill: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”  For more on my position, you can read a old blog post here.

 

Addition: 08/25/13:  if you thought the hate mail that the FFRF is vile and is absolutely hilarious when read aloud to make lovely examples of TrueChristians, just take a listen to the MRFF’s hate mail read aloud: http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2013/07/mrff-hate-mail-readings-chapter-1-of-more-to-come/

Advertisements

16 responses to “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Do something about it

    • “Spend an hour with any Christian apologist and a single, non-scripted word will penetrate, pervade and ultimately describe everything they say or do: EXCUSE. From the hastily tailored explanations made for why their Middle Eastern god is invisible, inaudible and impotent to the petitions presented for why the character, Jesus, didn’t say anything new or even marginally useful a defensive plea will shadow every subject of every discussion… and for very good reason: there isn’t a single facet of Christianity that is free from serious question hanging over it. The gospels are a mess of outrageous contradictions, the Jesus described in one book is consistently at odds to the one described in the next, and no two (anonymous) authors of any of the canonical, gnostic, or so-named apocryphal books seemed even capable of getting Christianity’s triumphant and climatic ending correct.”

      >Assertions are always fun, no?

      “The oldest of the synoptic works, Mark, didn’t originally mention a resurrection”

      >We’ve been over this, John. There are many bits about that. tektonics.org/lp/markend.html

      “and in the gnostic gospel of Thomas the character isn’t even executed. In the Gospel of Peter Jesus is crucified in Rome by Herod Antipas, not Jerusalem by Pontius Pilate, and in the Gospel of Truth the hero is nailed to a living tree, not a Roman cross, which then spews forth fruit like an exploding piñata. ”

      >Which is irrelevant. Completely.

      “It is a bizarre script bungle only bested by the (anonymous) author of Matthew who went completely off the reservation when he detailed his post-crucifixion Zombie Apocalypse; a jaw-dropping, brain-haemorrhaging, eye-popping event so astonishing that it was missed by absolutely everyone in all of Roman occupied Palestine. Something else that was missed by absolutely everyone in all of Roman occupied Palestine was, it appears, Jesus himself.”

      >I’ve said before, John. They’d be targets, like Lazarus, so the pharisees would keep it hidden. If they made it a huge event out of it, or left it alone, people would know something was up. Moreover, it probably wasn’t much to note anyway. They came out of tombs (implying they had a fair sum of money), and they were considered holy. How much would that be? Probably about what- 10 people?

      “In a word, there is no word, not even a simple artistic rendering,”

      >Which was hardly common in the Jewish cultural context.

      “and the excuse proffered as to why no one along the entire eastern Mediterranean seaboard bothered to jot down a single line about Christianity’s miracle-performing hero during his allegedly remarkable life is as comical as it is appallingly unsatisfactory: Prudent economic practices. To the fleet-footed apologist short-pocketed, tight-fisted, penny-pinching stinginess best explains the total absence of a solitary word until well over two generations after the exploding piñata event. That is to say, paper was allegedly so expensive that the day-to-day economics favoured an oral, not written tradition which (by extension) implies almost everyone in 1st Century Palestine was functionally illiterate, and all those who could write didn’t bother because they couldn’t afford to… even if they’d just seen a man raised from the dead.”

      >Indeed. Papyrus was expensive (See. Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (Yale University Press, 1997), 44-50, 266; Achtemeier, 11f; Whitney Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel (Trinity Press International: 2003))

      >Indeed. Most people were illiterate. See Harris, Ancient Literacy.

      “Ignoring the deafening silence from professional historians and social commentators like Philo, Pliny (the elder), Seneca, or even Gaius Licinius Mucianus (men who were in the business of noticing small things like the heavens rearranging themselves to herald a virgin birth), the mechanics of the widespread illiteracy argument simply don’t match reality.”

      >All of which had been dealt with. See this for more- http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.html. On the other hand, I wonder why only one eyewitness bothers to mention the Eruption of Vesuvius.

      “Warning signs posted on Herod’s Temple (9BCE) are a clear indication that reading and writing was common among ordinary folk.If this were not the case then surely a town crier, not a mute stone sign, would have been more in order, particularly when the punishment for disobeying the warning was death.”

      >No, not really. The literacy rate for Burkina Faso is less than 30%. However, there are signs there too- isrrt.org/images/isrrt/Workshop%20in%20Burkina%20Faso%201.JPG

      “Perhaps even more telling is that before the Jewish revolt the high priest Yehoshua ben Gamla (cir. 64 C.E.) appointed teachers in every town and village of every province throughout Palestine to provide an education for boys aged six and up. Regarded as the founder of formal Jewish education for children Gamla’s sweeping policy directive assumes a vast stock of professionally literate laypeople ready to fill classrooms in every miniscule, deadbeat, backend, go-nowhere village across Palestine which, in-turn, presupposes that major regional centers already had well established education systems dating back decades, if not well into the 1st Century BCE. A single classroom without a qualified teacher is, after all, about as useful as a car without petrol. Hundreds of classrooms without qualified teachers is simple madness.”

      >The program probably did not go very far because of the war. And “education”, which meant religious instruction, didn’t require writing anyway.

      “Even the gospels contradict the illiteracy excuse.”

      >No, you’re just having trouble reading. The majority of people were illiterate; no one said everyone was.

      “In the Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas there’s a school in Nazareth where the teacher, Zacchaeus, teaches reading and writing to the children. Jesus himself (the lowly son, we’re told, of a carpenter in a pimple-sized village) read from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue, quoted from Jewish holy books, and was forever yelling at his accusers: “Have you not read!?!” (Luke 6:3, Matthew 12:3, Matthew 12:5, Matthew 19:4, Matthew 21:16, Matthew 21:42, Matthew 22:29, Matthew 22:31, John 5:39).”

      >So? The literacy rate in urban areas were 10% and rural areas were 3%, not 0.

      “This not only screams literacy to his opponents, but also to himself and to his apostles; a point that is reflected in the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13) where Jesus orders a whole slew of simpleminded debtors to physically write down what he tells them.”

      >Those debtors were merchants who had people debted to them; so, they would have a fair sum of money.

      “A written tradition was evidently very much alive and well across 1st Century Palestine, and although papyrus imported from Egypt might indeed have been considered expensive (monopolised products typically are) a quick search through the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Papyrus Collection, reveals numerous contemporary examples of the medium in wide use across the eastern Mediterranean for such mundane purposes as receipts, lists, lease agreements, marriage and divorce documents, and even run-of-the-mill business letters.”

      >Which is also irrelevant. Yes, rich people had money. Yes, rich people wrote letters and receipts. Yes, indeed, some people even re-used paper. However, none of that is any good for something as lengthy as the Gospels. So items used for mundane purposes wouldn’t support you.

      “The cost however of papyrus is entirely irrelevant. Far cheaper and more readily available parchment fashioned from lime treated animal hides (vellum) was the medium of choice and although subject to rot when exposed to humidity documents considered important enough were repeatedly reproduced, as exampled in the library of Qumran.”

      >Here’s an excerpt from one of JP Holding’s books- “Parchment (made of animal skins) was also an available medium, but it was more difficult to make.” Moreover, this quick rotting material wouldn’t be too good for documents that were constantly passed around, like the Gospels.

      “Unearthed in 1946 the libraries 972 handwritten (mostly) leather documents (which date from as early as 408 BCE) represent the continual copying of scriptures, the creation of new ones, ordinances, apocalyptic visions, commentaries, liturgical works, and even accounts of contemporary events as expressed in the Jeselsohn Stone; an ink on stone work discovered near Qumran and believed to denote the early 1st Century CE messianic Jewish rebel leader, Simon of Peraea. If Simon had warranted a contemporary stone record a generation before Jesus, why then not Christianity’s central hero figure; a man-god who we’re told inhabited an entirely new category of awesome.”

      >Column A-
      (Lines 1-6 unintelligible)
      7. [… ]the sons of Israel …[…]…
      8. […]… […]…
      9. [… ]the word of YHW[H …]…[…]
      10. […]… I\you asked …
      11. YHWH, you ask me. Thus said the Lord of Hosts:
      12. […]… from my(?) house, Israel, and I will tell the greatness(es?) of Jerusalem.
      13. [Thus] said YHWH, the Lord of Israel: Behold, all the nations are
      14. … against(?)\to(?) Jerusalem and …,
      15. [o]ne, two, three, fourty(?) prophets(?) and the returners(?),
      16. [and] the Hasidin(?). My servant, David, asked from before Ephraim(?)
      17. [to?] put the sign(?) I ask from you. Because He said, (namely,)
      18. [Y]HWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: …
      19. sanctity(?)\sanctify(?) Israel! In three days you shall know, that(?)\for(?) He said,
      20. (namely,) YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: The evil broke (down)
      21. before justice. Ask me and I will tell you what 22this bad 21plant is,
      22. lwbnsd/r/k (=? [To me? in libation?]) you are standing, the messenger\angel. He
      23. … (= will ordain you?) to Torah(?). Blessed be the Glory of YHWH the Lord, from
      24. his seat. “In a little while”, qyTuT (=a brawl?\ tiny?) it is, “and I will shake the
      25. … of? heaven and the earth”. Here is the Glory of YHWH the Lord of
      26. Hosts, the Lord of Israel. These are the chariots, seven,
      27. [un]to(?) the gate(?) of Jerusalem, and the gates of Judah, and … for the
      sake of
      28. … His(?) angel, Michael, and to all the others(?) ask\asked
      29. …. Thus He said, YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of
      30. Israel: One, two, three, four, five, six,
      31. [se]ven, these(?) are(?) His(?) angel …. ‘What is it’, said the blossom(?)\diadem(?)
      32. …[…]… and (the?) … (= leader?/ruler?), the second,
      33. … Jerusalem…. three, in\of the greatness(es?) of
      34. […]…[…]…
      35. […]…, who saw a man … working(?) and […]…
      36. that he … […]… from(?) Jerusalem(?)
      37. … on(?) … the exile(?) of …,
      38. the exile(?) of …, Lord …, and I will see
      39. …[…] Jerusalem, He will say, YHWH of
      40. Hosts, …
      41. […]… that will lift(?) …
      42. […]… in all the
      43. […]…
      44. […]…

      Column B-
      (Lines 45-50 are unintelligible)
      51. Your people(?)\with you(?) …[…]
      52. … the [me]ssengers(?)\[a]ngels(?)[ …]…
      53. on\against His/My people. And …[…]…
      54. [… ]three days(?). This is (that) which(?) …[… ]He(?)
      55. the Lord(?)\these(?)[ …]…[…]
      56. see(?) …[…]
      57. closed(?). The blood of the slaughters(?)\sacrifices(?) of Jerusalem. For He said,
      YHWH of Hos[ts],
      58. the Lord of Israel: For He said, YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of
      59. Israel: …
      60. […]… me(?) the spirit?\wind of(?) …
      61. …[…]…
      62. in it(?) …[…]…[…]
      63. …[…]…[…]
      64. …[…]… loved(?)/… …[…]
      65. The three saints of the world\eternity from\of …[…]
      66. […]… peace he? said, to\in you we trust(?) …
      67. Inform him of the blood of this chariot of them(?) …[…]
      68. Many lovers He has, YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel …
      69. Thus He said, (namely,) YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel …:
      70. Prophets have I sent to my people, three. And I say
      71. that I have seen …[…]…
      72. the place for the sake of(?) David the servant of YHWH[ …]…[…]
      73. the heaven and the earth. Blessed be …[…]
      74. men(?). “Showing mercy unto thousands”, … mercy […].
      75. Three shepherds went out to?/of? Israel …[…].
      76. If there is a priest, if there are sons of saints …[…]
      77. Who am I(?), I (am?) Gabri’el the …(=angel?)… […]
      78. You(?) will save them, …[…]…
      79. from before You, the three si[gn]s(?), three …[….]
      80. In three days li[ve], I, Gabri’el …[?],
      81. the Prince of Princes, …, narrow holes(?) …[…]…
      82. to/for … […]… and the …
      83. to me(?), out of three – the small one, whom(?) I took, I, Gabri’el.
      84. YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of(?)[ Israel …]…[….]
      85. Then you will stand …[…]…
      86. …\
      87. in(?) … eternity(?)/… \

      The stone is indeed attributed to him, however, it’s not a historical account like the Gospels.

      “Indeed, according to Christians, Jesus was the greatest person ever; a god born of a virgin who as a two year-old toddler slaughtered an entire gaggle of hideous fire-breathing DRAGONS, performed mass exorcisms, breathed life into clay statues, brought eight very dead people (two of whom he murdered) back to life, blew snakes apart with a word, transformed into a ball of light and met with spirits, controlled the weather with a wave, walked on water, fed 5,000 awestruck people with next to nothing (not once but twice), healed the blind, reanimated limbs, defied chemistry by turning water into wine, and performed so many other miracles that John (21:25) said “If every one of them were written down the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” All this and more was done, we’re told, and yet no one in all of Palestine was apparently moved enough by any of it to scribble down a single word… not even Lazarus; a man who one might naturally assume would’ve been inspired to pen (or simply commission) a cheap-as-chips Jeselsohn-like Stone to commemorate his unusually good turn of luck.”

      >Because like I said,

      1) Why would the contemporaries need to write anything down, when they were traveling around with Jesus and talking to people face to face? Oral tradition was preffered by Jews then, and even now (aish.com/jl/b/ol/48943186.html). You can’t question a piece of paper.

      2) Literacy rate was not so high.

      3) Rocks are no good for this kind of thing. Would you pass around rocks?

      4) Samuel Byrskog notes that the historian was suppored to interpret and report history so as to make it a bridge between the past and the present. Material was selected for relevance to readership, not necessarily because it was amazing.

      “Simply put, literacy levels don’t support the ear-spitting silence, and the price of paper can only be considered a mildly feasible explanation if the Christian apologist first concedes that something as trivial as a pedestrian business letter was tremendously more important and massively more meaningful (and therefore significantly more worthy of the expense)”

      >The Gospels weren’t as short as business letters.

      “than absolutely E V E R Y T H I N G the character, Jesus, did or said in his entire life. And even if the cost of paper was an issue and papyrus, vellum, stone and wood slabs were so preposterously priced that even Emperors couldn’t afford a single sheet”

      >Vellum was noted above. Stone and wood slabs wouldn’t be good for the purpose of the Gospels. The Gospels were Greco-Roman bioi that were passed around by Christians.

      “then the 24hr Cash-Machine Jesus descrbed in Matthew 17:24-27 could surely have magically conjured up enough gold coins to cover any bill, no matter how outlandish: “Go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin.””

      >”Could” does not mean “would” or “should”. Why should I give this argument any credibility?

      “Voilà! Enough paper to fill eight Alexandria Libraries… and that’s before we even begin to ask why Jesus himself didn’t jot down a word of two.”

      >Simply put, He didn’t have to. More info- tektonics.org/gk/jeswrite.html

      I invite you to TWeb. I wonder how long they will laugh at you.

      • Potato, if you want to address John’s post, then do it there, not on my blog. I will be happy to post a link to your post there from here. You have enough bandwidth here for your nonsense and lies.

        However, if you can’t get it up over there… 🙂 …. then of course you can be shown to be wrong here. More evidence that a TrueChristian is wrong is always much fun.

      • Sorry, ’bout that Club.

        Didn’t know if John would catch it in the flood of comments that was in his blog.

    • “The oldest of the synoptic works, Mark, didn’t originally mention a resurrection”

      >It would hardly matter if Mark 16:9-20 was inauthentic.

      I’ll quote Nick Peters on this one-

      “For instance, Mark 9:9 says:

      “As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.”

      Mark 14:28

      “But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”

      Mark has hints throughout the book about what is happening towards the end. The book is very fast-paced as indicated by the use of “immediately” throughout. Mark has identified the book as good news at the beginning and identified Jesus as the Son of God. He would not end the story then having Jesus being dead in the tomb and not even vindicated. Instead, Mark 16 has Jesus being risen. The women leave in awe and this is typical of Mark. Mark is meant to grip awe into you with the wonder about what happened next. Readers have enough information to know. That this gospel is written and ends there is to say that the story of Jesus has not ended.”

      • “Mark has hints throughout the book about what is happening towards the end”

        Ohhh, brilliant! “Hints”…. You’ve outdone yourself here, Potato!

      • “Ohhh, brilliant! “Hints”…. You’ve outdone yourself here, Potato!”

        >Heehee! I’m sorry, John, unlike what you might think from your preschool education, laughing does not address anything.

      • golly, the author has claimed the book as “good news”, why then it must be so. Or not. The women leave scared, not “in awe”. “8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” It’s a shame that you lie against your own bible but hey, I think it’s fiction and evidently you do too since you make up what it says just like when you claimed that it said that the entire Egyptian army *wasn’t* destroyed and I showed it does. And we have none of the claims of the great commission picking up poisonous creatures, drinking poison, etc, that *all* followers of JC would be able to do miracles, which Potato surely fails at doing any at all. We only have what which was added much later. Potato, your supposed messiah said this if you want to keep the ending of Mark: “16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

        Can you do this? Should I doubt you are a believer and baptized since you fail at all of this? It doesn’t say only “apostles” it says that anyone who believes can do miracles. Why can’t you? Why aren’t you at a veterans hospital and helping our service men and women? Why aren’t you placing your hands on the sick and making them well? Did your book lie? If it did, why believe any of it without evidence? You, Potato, are the best evidence that your religion is false.

        Again, if one reads the gospels, then one knows that they disagree on what supposedly happened at the tomb. Was it one angel? One man? Two angels/men? Was Jesus there or was he not? Where did he say the apostles were to meet him? And what did the apostles do right after JC supposedly did appear and then disappear? Were there so many miracles done after he was dead and then left for heaven that there were not enough books in the world to contain them? Did he just leave? Did the apostles fear for their lives or did they go right back to Jerusalem, and to the temple, and celebrate? Unsurprisingly, these contradiction get in the way of the story that the particular Christian wants to tell. If they want to make believe that Christians were persecuted, then the apostles hide, but if they want to make believe that the apostles were powerful, aka able to do miracles, then the celebration at the temple is the part they want to pretend is true.

        Oh and Potato? All of the gospels use the adverb “immediately”. Luke uses it 11 times. John uses it once. Mark uses it 13 times, and Matthew uses it 10. This is in the NIV per biblegateway.com You and your fellow apologists have no idea if the author of mark would or would not do something and your “hints” are just the wishful thinking of apologists who are sure that their “interpretation” is the only “right” one. Again, I do ask for you to show that your god approves of your interpretation more than that of other Christians.

        Mark 9 says: 2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.

        5 Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 6 (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)

        7 Then a cloud appeared and covered them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”

        8 Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.

        9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10 They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what “rising from the dead” meant.

        11 And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

        12 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? 13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”

        Again, we have the apostles having no more clue on what their god meant than you do. We also have JC claiming that John was Elijah with no evidence. Quite interesting if one claims that the Christian faith doesn’t accept reincarnation. If one googles “was John Baptist Elijah” one finds that even Christians don’t agree. I do love doing searches on stuff like this. We have TrueChristians insisting that JC was only speaking in metaphor when he was saying John was Elijah: http://www.letusreason.org/nam2.htm . But then we have another TrueChristian like Tater who is sure that it’s the opposite, that it was literal. Yep, we again get to see Christians disagreeing and insisting that those other TrueChristians are wrong and of course having no more evidence that they are right.

      • ClubS, why must you drag the argument ad nauseum like so? I thought you didn’t want to waste space.

        Exodus: We also noted that some ran away, and that only the ones who went into the sea drowned. The chariots would’ve leading the charge.

        Mark being the good news: You’re making a straw man. We’re talking about Mark claiming it to be so. Thus, he would not have meant Jesus did not rise. Mark alludes to the resurrection.

        The context is that 9-20 is argued to be inauthentic. So, I don’t need to answer that part.

        One angel or two? Different perspectives. One merely needs to show a possible scenario to discredit the contradiction accusation. And contradiction would be somethings that exclude each other.

        I’ll go in detail for the rest later.

      • Why must I show you wrong? Because allowing someone like you to lie to other is against my morals.

        there is no thing in Exodus that says any of the army ran away.
        Exodus 14
        2 “Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp near Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. They are to encamp by the sea, directly opposite Baal Zephon. 3 Pharaoh will think, ‘The Israelites are wandering around the land in confusion, hemmed in by the desert.’ 4 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD.” So the Israelites did this.
        5 When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, “What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!” 6 So he had his chariot made ready and took his army with him. 7 He took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them. 8 The LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, so that he pursued the Israelites, who were marching out boldly.9 The Egyptians—all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots, horsemen and troops—pursued the Israelites and overtook them as they camped by the sea near Pi Hahiroth, opposite Baal Zephon…

        23 The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and horsemen followed them into the sea. 24 During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion. 25 He jammed the wheels of their chariots so that they had difficulty driving. And the Egyptians said, “Let’s get away from the Israelites! The LORD is fighting for them against Egypt.”…
        26 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may flow back over the Egyptians and their chariots and horsemen.” 27 Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea went back to its place. The Egyptians were fleeing toward it, and the LORD swept them into the sea. 28 The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen—the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea . Not one of them survived.”

        First, how did this god “gain glory” for his self? By destruction and thus he says he will gain glory “though Pharaoh and all his army”, not just part of it. We have no evidence of anyone running away, only a desire to run away in a story. We have the entire army supposedly being destroyed. Of course, we have no evidence that any of this happened. We have no great remains of chariots of the entire Egyptian army laying on the bottom of any water way in the area. You see, Potato, archaeology could support your bible claims but it doesn’t. Not one artifact, not one written stele, or document. Nothing. We have nothing that shows that the entire army of Egypt was destroyed or that its chariots were destroyed. As you say, yes, an army would be led by chariots, the shock troops of Egypt and without those every enemy nation would have been at Egypt’s throat. The bible says all of the army, the horses and chariots, the horsement and troops, were destroyed “Not one of them survived”. This loss and the loss of *every* first born, including animals would have weakened Egypt. And golly, not one bit of evidence this happened. No exodus of millions, no 4 decades wandering around, no destroyed army, nothing.

        And if you wish to claim I am creating a strawman, show how I have supposedly done it. Mark mentions that this man might rise from the dead and evidently none of them have any idea what he’s talking about. Mark has that he will meet them in Galilee and not all the gospels agree on that either, surprise surprise! (luke is sure that he wants to meet in Jerusalem) The part of Mark you wish to claim as answering the problem of your gospels is considered inauthentic. It is considered made up to make it match the others. It fails in its claims that all who believe will be doing magical works. And all Christians are evidence that it is a lie since they cannot do the miracles promised.

        hiliarous that you claim that “one angle or two” are “different perspectives”. So, dear tater, was it one shooter or two at the Kennedy assassination? It surely would make a difference and it is not dependent on “different perspectives”. Show me this “possible scenario” that excuses someone from mistaking one angel for two angels.

        As for your going into detail “later”, well we know how that works. For example, you try and play pretend that Egyptian kings are Babylonian kings to support your lies. Or you simply never address the topic again.

        oh and lest you think your older posts will not be addressed, I will be getting to them.

      • “golly, the author has claimed the book as “good news”, why then it must be so.”

        >That was never the argument. If you actually paid attention, it is pointing to the fact of how Mark alludes to the resurrection. You’re making a straw man. We’re talking about Mark claiming it to be so. Thus, he would not have meant Jesus did not rise. Mark alludes to the resurrection.

        “The women leave scared, not “in awe”.”

        >As we note, bewilder is a synonym of “awe”. thesaurus.babylon(dot)com/bewilder

        “It’s a shame that you lie against your own bible but hey, I think it’s fiction and evidently you do too since you make up what it says just like when you claimed that it said that the entire Egyptian army *wasn’t* destroyed and I showed it does.”

        >ClubS, as we’ve noted, some ran away, and that only the ones who went into the sea drowned. The chariots would’ve leading the charge.

        “And we have none of the claims of the great commission picking up poisonous creatures, drinking poison, etc, that *all* followers of JC would be able to do miracles, which Potato surely fails at doing any at all. We only have what which was added much later. Potato, your supposed messiah said this if you want to keep the ending of Mark:
        Can you do this? Should I doubt you are a believer and baptized since you fail at all of this? It doesn’t say only “apostles” it says that anyone who believes can do miracles. Why can’t you? Why aren’t you at a veterans hospital and helping our service men and women? Why aren’t you placing your hands on the sick and making them well? Did your book lie? If it did, why believe any of it without evidence? You, Potato, are the best evidence that your religion is false.”

        >ClubS, once again, I would ask you to pay attention. The context of by rejoinder to John’s comment was of how Mark 16:9-20 is argued to be inauthentic. Thus, I don’t need to answer your claim.

        “Again, if one reads the gospels, then one knows that they disagree on what supposedly happened at the tomb. Was it one angel? One man? Two angels/men? Was Jesus there or was he not? Where did he say the apostles were to meet him? And what did the apostles do right after JC supposedly did appear and then disappear? Were there so many miracles done after he was dead and then left for heaven that there were not enough books in the world to contain them? Did he just leave? Did the apostles fear for their lives or did they go right back to Jerusalem, and to the temple, and celebrate? Unsurprisingly, these contradiction get in the way of the story that the particular Christian wants to tell. If they want to make believe that Christians were persecuted, then the apostles hide, but if they want to make believe that the apostles were powerful, aka able to do miracles, then the celebration at the temple is the part they want to pretend is true.”

        >Short answer: Different perspectives/times. One merely needs to show a possible scenario to discredit the contradiction accusation. And contradiction would be somethings that exclude each other.

        “Oh and Potato? All of the gospels use the adverb “immediately”. Luke uses it 11 times. John uses it once. Mark uses it 13 times, and Matthew uses it 10. This is in the NIV”

        >The word is “euthýs” and is used in the Gospel of Mark 41 times. So, who uses it the most? Mark. Who wrote the shortest Gospel? Mark.

        “You and your fellow apologists have no idea if the author of mark would or would not do something and your “hints” are just the wishful thinking of apologists who are sure that their “interpretation” is the only “right” one. Again, I do ask for you to show that your god approves of your interpretation more than that of other Christians.”

        >ClubS, it’s called contextual study.

        “Mark 9 says: Again, we have the apostles having no more clue on what their god meant than you do.”

        >Which has what to do with the subject? He is alluding to the resurrection.

        “We also have JC claiming that John was Elijah with no evidence. Quite interesting if one claims that the Christian faith doesn’t accept reincarnation. If one googles “was John Baptist Elijah” one finds that even Christians don’t agree.”

        >ClubS, why are you so intellectually dishonest? If one Googles “ClubSchadenfruede is smart”, you’ll see nothing pops up. Therefore, you must be stupid. Google doesn’t provide the depth needed.

        “I do love doing searches on stuff like this.”

        >Lazy, non-contextual Google searches. No scholarship involved.

        “We have TrueChristians insisting that JC was only speaking in metaphor when he was saying John was Elijah: . But then we have another TrueChristian like Tater who is sure that it’s the opposite, that it was literal. Yep, we again get to see Christians disagreeing and insisting that those other TrueChristians are wrong and of course having no more evidence that they are right.””

        >Like I said before, there is a such thing as contextual study. Reincarnation is completely foreign to Jewish ideas. As we note in Mark 6:14-16, people distinguished the two. John the Baptist even denies being Elijah.

      • “Why must I show you wrong? Because allowing someone like you to lie to other is against my morals.”

        >Which are merely your own opinions in the atheistic world view.

        “there is no thing in Exodus that says any of the army ran away.”

        >Verse 25? The ones that drowned were the ones that “that had followed the Israelites into the sea”.

        “First, how did this god “gain glory” for his self? By destruction and thus he says he will gain glory “though Pharaoh and all his army”, not just part of it. We have no evidence of anyone running away, only a desire to run away in a story.”

        >So, they would say they would run away and not even try?

        “We have the entire army supposedly being destroyed.”

        >”that had followed the Israelites into the sea”.

        “Of course, we have no evidence that any of this happened. We have no great remains of chariots of the entire Egyptian army laying on the bottom of any water way in the area. You see, Potato, archaeology could support your bible claims but it doesn’t.”

        >We have hardly anything of what the ancients had.

        “Not one artifact, not one written stele, or document. Nothing. We have nothing that shows that the entire army of Egypt was destroyed or that its chariots were destroyed. As you say, yes, an army would be led by chariots, the shock troops of Egypt and without those every enemy nation would have been at Egypt’s throat.”

        >Who are you expecting to write anything? The people of Jericho? The Canaanites? The Phillistines? As Glenn Miller put it, :They do not show up in the extremely few literary remains we have of those places”.

        “The bible says all of the army, the horses and chariots, the horsement and troops, were destroyed “Not one of them survived”.”

        >”that had followed the Israelites into the sea”.

        “This loss and the loss of *every* first born, including animals would have weakened Egypt. And golly, not one bit of evidence this happened. No exodus of millions, no 4 decades wandering around, no destroyed army, nothing.”

        >Been over this.

        “And if you wish to claim I am creating a strawman, show how I have supposedly done it.”

        >ClubS, I don’t know why you are so intellectually dishonest. The fact that your post has nothing to do with what I said is the evidence.

        “Mark mentions that this man might rise from the dead and evidently none of them have any idea what he’s talking about. Mark has that he will meet them in Galilee and not all the gospels agree on that either, surprise surprise! (luke is sure that he wants to meet in Jerusalem)”

        >What is the problem if they are different times? See more- apologeticspress(dot)org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=730

        “The part of Mark you wish to claim as answering the problem of your gospels is considered inauthentic. It is considered made up to make it match the others. It fails in its claims that all who believe will be doing magical works. And all Christians are evidence that it is a lie since they cannot do the miracles promised.”

        >Which again, John argues it is inauthentic. Do you want to contradict your friends again?

        “hiliarous that you claim that “one angle or two” are “different perspectives”. So, dear tater, was it one shooter or two at the Kennedy assassination? It surely would make a difference and it is not dependent on “different perspectives”. Show me this “possible scenario” that excuses someone from mistaking one angel for two angels.”

        >ClubS, since you appear to have a taste for Google and links (contradicting your earlier complaints), I’ll leave you with this- tektonics(dot)org/harmonize/demoniactale.html or this – christianthinktank(dot)com/ordorise.html

      • ClubS, I am tired of jumping back and forth on your site. It appears you are tired of the space I take up.

        Once again, I invite you to TheologyWeb to have a discussion.

        According to John Zande, if one refuses to do so, they are an evasive coward.

Leave a Reply (depending on current posters, posts may be moderated, individually or en masse. It may take a day or two for a comment to be released so don't panic). Remember, I control the horizontal, I control the vertical.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s