cujo006's Rebuttal to JP Holding Re: Jephthah

[cujo006]

Not at all. If he debated others without insults, then that's fine. I've been wrong before, and I could be wrong here too about Jephthah's daughter. Personally, if the evidence pointed in JP Holding's direction, I have no problem with saying, "oh wait, that's true Jephthah's daughter really wasn't killed but became subject under Leviticus 27:1-8" only, and in fact, it doesn't even really matter with respect to the Christian faith whether she was or wasn't. I simply saw too many glaring errors of interpretation here and I started with comments on youtube (being bored) and he invited me to theologyweb, which I initially didn't want to because there's no point in debating this, but when I saw the second youtube video featuring me as an old man from the 19th century, I decided to stir up the pot (sinlessly) again :) . Hopefully me being featured as an old man in the second video doesn't mean I write in a boring way lol. But other that, if you honestly think that a simple discussion always needs insults for the other person, if he's wrong, to be shown wrong, then that's something I personally don't agree with.

It does and your failure to prove it and instead rant on and on and on and on and filling your post with all this space filler that doesn't address any points he brought up, says a lot. I know of few modern scholars that think that she was killed, but even if she was, it still would reflect very negatively on Jephthah.

I'm sorry to say but you're very ignorant or simply like quarreling (which is a sin - Proverbs 17:19) to think a simple discussion always needs insults. If I have failed with anything is to point out to an arrogant and ignorant runt like you why you're wrong. I addressed all of his points, as far as I saw them, so saying I didn't address any of his points is just your ridiculous polemic, so I'm not the one who is simply throwing around empty words - newsflash: it's you. I don't see how it reflects negatively on Jephthah at all if he had to righteously fulfill a vow that his daughter righteously accepted. I'm sure many atheists would see a problem just like they see one with Abraham's righteous willingness to sacrifice his only (legitimate heir) son - Isaac.

It's not that I want to refute the Trilemma. It's that the Trilemma is not a way to show Christ resurrected to someone who does not believe in inerrancy. Here's the problem: The Trilemma says: Christ says that He is God (I agree with this): This means that either He is: 1) Lying 2) Crazy or 3) Saying the Truth. If He was lying, then why would He die for it (true). If He was crazy then why would He have followers willing to die for Him (it's very easy to verify that He wasn't resurrected if He wasn't). Thus only the third option remains.

Your ignorance of the Trilemma is astounding, no, it doesn't assume that, from the get go, rather it would assume he existed and made claims about himself about being God. So it would say he is either lying, crazy, or telling the truth. Totally different then you present it here. If you are going to present an argument and try to show how bad it is, it usually does a good to actually understand the argument in question first.

It's not my ignorance that is astounding, it's yours, dear friend. Every (sane) scholar knows Jesus existed, but how can you prove that He made claims about Himself being God unless you assume the Gospel to be 100% reliably Jesus' words - most scholars don't. So what you have to do is show the Gospel to be reliable. But once you've done that, you've already shown the Gospels are historically reliable and that Jesus probably rose from the dead. Now, perhaps if you could show that His sayings such as the ones about Him saying He is God are reliable, then you would have a case for the Trilemma. However, it would be much easier to show that the History of the Gospel Tradition as a whole is reliable and authentic than for specific sayings, so that simply goes back to the original problem with the Trilemma.

However, this only works with someone who believes that the Gospels contain the actual words of Jesus (I do). If someone comes around and says: "Well those words were not by Him", then the Trilemma shifts to trying to prove the authenticity of the content of the Gospels. However, if you show that the Gospels are authentic, you have eliminated the need to have the Trilemma in the first place! And that's all I was saying.

The argument has an assumption dear heart. Anybody familiar with debate styles and arguments usually knows that every argument has key assumptions under it. The trilemma is no different. Believe it or not, one can use different arguments for different situations. I wouldn't use the trilemma if I was dealing with a Jesus myther, but I would if I was dealing with somebody that thought Jesus was a sage or a teacher. You claimed to have studied for 'hundreds of hours,' but you don't understand how arguments are built and how they are used? Are you sure you were not studying "Where's Waldo" instead?

An argument about Jesus' resurrection would never assume the Gospels are as reliable as you (and I) do. That's what someone familiar with a debate style would know. Key assumptions do not extend nearly this far, and you should probably know this. I wouldn't use the Trilemma with someone who said Jesus was a myth either, but you certainly can't use it with someone like Ehrman (who does say Jesus existed), and the reason is because Ehrman and other non-conservative scholars don't accept these parts of the Gospels as authentic. This is what the "hundreds of hours" have slowly and painfully molded my mind to understand whereas before I did indeed think the Trilemma was a very good proof.

I don't find anything obvious about my logic, so please show me how it is obvious or stop throwing around unsupported claims. I can only assure you that I remember the methodology they used. If I didn't, you'd be able to poke holes through my logic (which you haven't as far as I see).

Considering that you don't even understand how arguments are built and used, I doubt explaining it to you would show the errors of your thought.

It's not me who doesn't understand. It's you who can't take a hint and actually try to learn instead of trying to throw arguments around, and I do say try: you're not very good at it.

Can you show me where I've ignored what scholars have said? I've ignored what Holding thinks they said but other than that, if a scholar has sound reasoning bearing on Jephthah's daughter, I haven't seen it by Holding or you. My mind is not small. At least that's what I think, or perhaps this is the response of a small mind! But the bottom line is, I have nowhere seen any kind of legitimate argumentation that supports Holding, nor have you or Holding posted it here. I don't see where I've dug the hole. You should stop making empty assertions.

Really dear heart? Did you even read the article that JPH links to? He names scholars off, so again, you didn't actually bother to read and you're shooting off the hip and hoping you hit the target, eh? Again, your ignorance is astounding and your inability to deal with what is presented, speaks volumes.

I've read most of his arguments: I wouldn't be here in the first place if I hadn't read so many.

Ok, and these are insults that they deserved and I completely believe Jesus had no sin in doing that. Now here is the difference for you who is truly the deluded one:

1. We don't live in that age anymore: things have changed. When someone (a Christian) wants to correct you about something, you don't respond that way.

Awe, the old 'age of the idea' argument. I see you haven't watched a modern day political debate. There's plenty of subtle insults that fly around there. Remember the famous line in 1992 when Clinton told the audience something like this, "Do not read his lips" where he was referring to a statement Bush Sr made earlier. Perhaps you should go and brief Clinton about his use of insults, ok?

Why am I supposed to be briefing Clinton about his use of insults - is he a believer, part of a Christian community? If he were, and I were seeing his behavior somewhere online, I might say something. Just because he throws insults and others do, doesn't mean you can. Furthermore, this is not an old "age of the idea" argument at all. In today's world, you and Holding's despicable behavior quite frankly would turn away many from considering Christianity and that is without a doubt a sin (1 Corinthians 8). In Jesus' day it may not have been that way, but today it is - as Paul said, "I try by all means to save some", "to the Jew I became a Jew, to the Greek a Greek".

[quote]

2. Humility existed back then and Jesus didn't call the Pharisees fools and didn't say "Have you not read" to them every single time. As I said, the Gospels don't record His daily actions but some of the most important things. For example, in John, when someone hit Jesus during His trial for rebuking (I think) the High Priest, His answer was with humility (John 18:22-23).

An ad hoc explanation made up on the spot to explain away evidence you dislike, as opposed to answering the evidence. Tell me dear, do you think myself and JPH insult everybody? If so, I got some land to sell you on Venus for a very cheap price!

It's not explaining evidence away at all, nor is it ad hoc (I'm starting to suspect you don't know what that means and are just throwing it around). I clearly cited the example of John 18:22-23 and that's not ad hoc at all - it's an example. And from the way you and Holding are acting, you seem to be trying to insult anyone who disagrees with you. That doesn't convince people to support your arguments, even if you're right, and so an atheist or unbeliever will walk away from a discussion with you or Holding after the second sentence. Aside from the fact that Paul tells Timothy to instruct those who oppose him with gentleness and love (1 Timothy ) - true sometimes these fail, but certainly not when you start from 0 to 60 in 2 seconds.

3. Even if you are correct, the way you look also matters - this is why Paul notes that he does not want his conscience judged (1 Corinthians 10), and that he became a Jew for Jews, and Greek for Greeks.

Another made up excuse, how revealing. I'm sorry dear, but you really should read more of what Paul said because he did not say not to judge, but to judge carefully (much as Jesus said).

Paul having said to judge carefully has nothing to do with what I said. People will judge you careless despite the opposite being better which is why he doesn't act like you - but acts so that his conscience won't be judged (1 Corinthians 10).

Thus it is YOU my friend who is deluded. You can live in your own fantasies, but don't expect me or anyone who doesn't think as deluded as you to believe you're right.

In other words, you made up a bunch of excuses and don't see how easy they are to see though. See cujo, I've been at this for years, while you most likely were singing "Jesus Loves Me So" in your Sunday school class while I was reading up NT Wright or WLC.

I've been at this for years too. And while I always sing in my church and the words in my heart always are "Jesus Loves Me So" I also read scholars like NT Wright, but not WLC, who as I've said does not bring much to this debate. Do you even know who Werner Georg Kummel is? Willi Marxsen? Rudolf Bultmann? But I should definitely get some if not all of NT Wright's books. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem you reflect the research with your arguments, nor the Christian faith with your attitude.

I think that was Papias. And we have no reason to believe Papias had any reliable information, not to mention that we don't know what he meant by "logia" - it's debatable as to whether that meant the actual Gospel of Matthew. Even if it did, it still does not mean he was correct - he wrote c.120 AD, and by then legends started to develop about certain things. For example, by Hegesippus' time (c.160) there are several legends about St. James I think. Also about Mark being the interpreter of Peter (in Papias) is exaggerated to a bigger legend.

Another made up excuse, to explain away evidence you dislike rather then explain the evidence. How funny. Again, their reliance of oral tradition and the fact that Saint Papias was a disciple of the Apostle John, speaks volumes about your ignorance. He wasn't 'going off from roomer' dear heart, so please stop stating statements of ignorance that you can't deal with.

Papias may have been a disciple of John but that doesn't mean he was never wrong. For example, his account of the death of Judas is completely different from that of Acts (and Matthew - which I find the two to be harmonious). Papias reflects semi-developed legends mixed with some authentic information on the words and actions of Christ.

Oral cultures may have been common but that's only how Mark was formed, not Matthew. And Matthew would show signs of being a translation of Aramaic and seeing that only about 5 scholars who actually know Aramaic think so, and no others do, it's probably not so. Also, those 5 scholars who consider Matthew an Aramaic original do so 80% because of Papias, who we have no reason to believe had 100% reliable information. Now, I personally think Papias had very good information about things Jesus said and did that we don't find in the Gospels. However, legends exist: for example, his description of Judas' death is contradictory to Acts & Matthew. Thus, Papias is not necessarily reliable.

Sorry dear heart, but your made up excuses are becoming more and more obvious. Oral cultures were quite common and Mark and Matthew came from an oral culture dummy. Unless you think a literate culture magically developed and disappeared, in the first century. Second, I know they have more evidence then that and I also know that JPH has presented more then that (it seems you ignored it though, how revealing). Why are you leaving out the odd phrasing argument of Matthew's Gospel in the Greek, that makes more sense in Arabic or Hebrew?

There is nothing about Matthew's Gospel that makes more sense in Arabic (I think you meant Aramaic) or Hebrew except for the words of Christ, which makes sense because He spoke Aramaic. Matthew certainly used oral (reliable) tradition but he overtook Mark and the Greek coincidentally ad verbatim similarities between Mark Matthew and Luke show that: there is nothing wrong with Matthew having used Mark - instead of using the Christian oral tradition, he used Christian written history! How much better. And just because the society of the 1st century was very oral, doesn't mean everything written was originally either a composition or from oral tradition - many authors from the 4th century BC and on have incorporated or paraphrased works of others. For example, Cicero does this with at least one or two ancient Greek philosophers - incorporates some of their work. So clearly, one could use another work, especially if the author of Mark was an important Christian presbyter, which would have made communication with Matthew (perhaps written in Antioch), and thus Matthew would have had access to Mark. The Gospel of Thomas does this with all 4 (including John) Gospels, though certainly not in the same way but with the Gnostic heresy in mind.

I am not an Arian so why does this apply to me? I nowhere twist Scripture and it's only your perversion of it that I have a problem with (yours and Holding's).

So another made up excuse where you say something dumb to make up for your idiocy. Sorry dear heart, I didn't say you were an Arian, I said that many of the church fathers insulted people, so are you calling one of the greatest Theologians of the Western and Eastern Church (A doctor of the church in western and eastern tradition) a bad Christian? See, I know my church history and my church saints rather well. It appears you don't and it also appears that you lack the ability to read what people say too.

First of all, the heresy of Arianism being described as a "devised madness" and the perpetuators being called "ignorant" and ones that "deceive men into wrong thoughts about Christ" and "scatter with the devil" is nothing compared to your sinful insults. 1) They were combatting a major heresy. 2) They weren't talking about Jephthah's daughter. 3) They don't use the insults you do, and I've used the most insulting-sounding one, and don't have a problem with it in the proper context (you and Holding): ignorant.

Why is my ignorance profound? What is so profoundly ignorant about disagreeing with Holding's interpretation of Judges 11 and why does that need the Insult Paradigm to be accessed? Why is it needed to shame me if I disagree with Holding? It's clear that your senseless and mindless delusions are as big as Holding's, so from now on you'll be ignored, which is what you deserve. (Note that's the opposite of the Insult Paradigm, and it's also something Paul prescribed to his churches when dealing with those who didn't want to get their heads straight).

You not being able to show where he is wrong at, making up ad hoc explanations, ignore evidence, etc is how you are profoundly ignorant and seem to have a massive ego that needs deflated a few pegs. If you think you serliously answered me, you are

The only one who is ignorant, is the one who:

1) Does not point out where I haven't answered Holding (typical polemic)
2) Does not have an actual example of ad hoc, but just throws it around such as when I cited Christ's humility despite calling the Pharisees what they were - ignorant, immoral men.
3) The one who thinks that starting a discussion with insults (like you) is ok.

[cujo006]

Another ad hoc excuse, so again child, follow this slowly...

Do you think accusing the scholars and religious teachers of your day of 'missing something' isn't an insult? Wow... you really are deluded and/or stupid, huh?

It's not me who is deluded.

[cujo006]

According to evilbible.com, the Bible itself puts Christians in a bad light.

God's a sinner, huh?

This could have only come from academic ignorance and knowledgless intolerance.

[cujo006]

To close this round, a sample of the slobbering dog's poor education from CARM:



He didn't give a "gentle answer", that's for sure!

http://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/shame.html

Jewish Investigation (18:12-14, 19-24). Outsiders see only that Jesus has lost power: "The cohort seized Jesus and bound him" (18:12). His captors take him to the private chambers of Annas, a very powerful enemy, who questions Jesus. Recall that questions are generally challenges. When questioned, Jesus delivers a bold response: "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in the synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together" (18:20). Jesus claims that he has acted as an honorable man, always appearing in the appropriate male space, the public arena, and speaking boldly and clearly. His parrhêsia (bold speech) denotes courageous and honorable public behavior (see 1 Thess 2:2). In contrast, this gospel declares as shameful people who are afraid to speak openly about the Christ (9:22-23; 12:42; see Phil 1:20).

The narrative interprets Jesus' bold speech as a riposte to Annas' challenging questions. Jesus commands his interrogator, "Ask those who have heard me. They know what I said" (18:21). This occasions a severe counter-challenge from one of the officers standing by, who "struck Jesus with his hand" (v. 22; see 19:3). The gesture was surely a slap in the face, thus giving an "affront" to Jesus. It is similar to the blows given Jesus according to the synoptic accounts (Matt 26:67; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63-64; see Matt 5:39). But Jesus is not silenced or humbled as was Paul, when struck by Annas' servant (Acts 23:4-5). He gives an appropriate riposte, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?" (18:23). Thus he withstands the insult and continues to speak boldly, even having the last word.

Mr I No Need to Read goes on:



Wrong again.

Jesus now remains silent (19:9). He neither defends himself nor offers a riposte to the challenge. Silence in the face of accusation is very difficult to assess; but in an honor and shame context it would probably be read as a shameful thing (see Neh 6:8). To fail to give a riposte to a challenge is to accept defeat and so loss of honor.

Yet readers have already been socialized in just this aspect of Jesus' honor, and so the riposte has been given in advance. Knowledge of whence Jesus comes (pothen) and whither he goes (pou) has been a major issue throughout the narrative. Outsiders either do not know (3:8; 8:14; 9:29) or falsely think they know (6:41-42; 7:27-28). Many times Jesus proclaims the correct answer, namely, that he comes down from heaven (6:38) or that he descends from heaven and ascends back there (3:13; 6:62). Insiders like the blind man accurately deduced the true "whence" of Jesus because of his power to heal (9:30). And finally the reader is told that Jesus comes from God and returns to heaven (13:1-2). Thus readers can answer Pilate's question; they know "whence he is," namely, a person whose parent is none other than God and whose "country of origin" is none less than heaven. His exalted honor, then, is secure in their eyes.

The narrative suggests that Jesus' silence in fact challenges Pilate's power, who then responds with new questions: "Will you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?" (19:10). "Power" (exousia), an expression of honor, is at stake. Although Jesus gives no riposte to this new challenge concerning his origin, he does in turn offer a counter-challenge to Pilate's claim of power: "You would have no power over me unless it were given you from above" (19:11). Hence Pilate's power is a relative thing, for the truly powerful figure is not Caesar, from whom Pilate enjoys ascribed honor, but God, from whom all power flows (John 10:29). Emperors, kings and governors all owe their power and honor to God (Rom 13:1; 1 Tim 2:2; 1 Pet 2:13-17). This narrative, moreover, asserts that it is God's will and purpose that Jesus undergo this trial (John 12:27). God commanded that he "lay down his life and take it again" (10:17-18). Inasmuch as sons are commanded to "Honor their father" (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; Mark 10:19), the presentation of Jesus as the obedient one (Heb 5:8; see Mark 14:36//Matt 2639//Luke 22:42) marks his actions here as honoring his Father and thus warranting the honor of an obedient son.

Yeah he don't need to read no books. Except Charles Stanley.

Obviously sometimes harsh rebuke is necessary, but the general rule of gentlesness is meant - 1 Timothy 6:11. Then again, can I really expect someone who takes the fact that "I don't need to read books to know" you're wrong out of context to understand this?

[cujo006]

I'm going to show just how far this egomaniac can be trusted to tell the truth and admit his errors.



Quote me where I say that the transmission of the Gospels was ENTIRELY oral tradition.

And:

Quite simply you do not grasp the ideas that modern scholarship has (quite correctly as far as methodology) put forward. You think that Matthew was entirely Aramaic and that it was more or less entirely oral tradition. You will never realize that that's impossible and that's it. And I would never go against conservative Christianity because of what I know which is the reason I am a Christian in the first place (though certainly was only a starting point as to why I'm a Christian today). The facts that one might have at a certain point may seem to point in a certain direction, in other words, against conservative Christianity, but I know for a fact that that wouldn't be true. Furthermore, the facts don't even point that way.

So in other words, even if the evidence weighed heavily against what you call "conservative Christianity," you'd not reconsider it?

No clearer word needs to be said by this one to indicate that the truth is not his priority. Rather, he will contrive, twist, make excuses, or do whatever else is needed to evade confronting anything that conflicts with what he has decided is true.

By his own words he is indicted!

The only one who has done that is you. It reflects you, and this sad attempt to twist my words shows that you are simply an ignorant petty man who thinks a debate is throwing around insults and trying to twist words. You know exactly what I mean by that and it's not that I don't try to find the truth. All I mean is that if something seems to be pointing away from Christianity, I would never accept it. And that's not even the case. For something like Jephthah's daughter I am completely unbiased and I would accept errors in my reasoning or evidence. Learn to read pal.

[cujo006]

Cujo you said to portray Christians in a bad light on purpose is sinful ,and yet you claim that you are just here pot stirring sinlessly. How is that possible when you are purposely portraying J.P. Holding in a bad light? This is hypocrisy. I think insulting someone who deserves it is not a sin ,but I think hypocrisy certainly falls under this category.

I was trying to stir the pot, but then I guess everything shifted to pointing out Holding's despicable attitude and behavior. A 5 year old stuck in a 45 year old's body. I didn't want to debate Holding in the first place exactly because both of our time would be wasted, but as I said, I simply wanted to finally come and give my view about Jephthah. Instead, the petty man turned it into a burial of the past, trying to uncover whatever he could to try to twist it and make it seem that his opponent is wrong, by whatever means necessary. That is the person who truly twists and as he calls it "contrives", and he accuses me of it, ha! I just think pointing this out for his shame here on the board is something that perhaps will result in his mouth calming down for a week or two.

[cujo006]

A minor mistake that was admitted to is the best you got? That's pretty funny! But yeah, giving skepticism WITHOUT a reason is indeed a made up excuse. Does Licona state that he 'doubts it' without giving reasons? Yes or no?

Not at all, Papias' testimony is demonstratably false on at least one point: the death of Judas. He says that Judas became bloated like a chariot and exploded (while walking). This doesn't square with a hanging at all. The word "prenes genomenos" 'become headlong' is a clear euphemism by the author of Acts that Judas fell to the ground from a low height and thus burst his insides. For example, when Eutychus fell from the third floor (Acts 20:9), Luke uses a completely different word (katafero) which is exclusively for an actual fall (that would split your insides). The usage of "prenes" in Wisdom 4:19 (if I remember correctly) shows that the opponent in an argument is being "dashed to the ground" that is he is slammed hard down on the ground from a small height. This word however is also translated as "inflated" (the Vulgate translates Wisdom 4:19 as inflatos to harmonize Acts with Matthew; which is not needed as they are already harmonized if one is careful enough). This comes from the fact that the the tradition about Judas' death as a bursting must have been passed down to Papias, though the reason for it was not as widely known (Matthew's tradition). So what happened was that after Judas hung himself, the bloated body "became headlong" or was dashed onto the ground and the field became known as Akeldama. The tradition of a bloated body exploding however was what became the major tradition (by Papias' time and later on - St. Jerome with the Vulgate), and the minor tradition as to the cause of Judas' death (not the result of the death) is preserved by Matthew.

Thus Papias demonstratably has a corrupted tradition about Judas' death. Yet he is to be trusted about everything else? Surely not. Not to mention no one is actually sure what he means by Matthew having composed the "logia" in Aramaic/Hebrew.

[cujo006]

As an anthropologist, what you are doing is looking at a foreign culture and demanding that your own cultural logics rule. This is a common mistake and will only leave you thinking that a culture is weird, but you can rectify your approach by learning about the culture. You simply will not understand the rituals of an ancient religion coming from a modern industrial, highly literate paradigm, nevermind all the other major cultural gaps. The set of ancient documents that make up the Bible, whatever canon you relate to, are no exception as they were written by ancient Mediterraneans.

If you would like to discuss this shift in hermeneutics I am asserting you need to make, I would be happy to discuss it with you.

Sure, I am happy to learn. I know that the culture is far different from ours. I simply don't think common things such as Jephthah's daughter becoming an 'olah' falls under Leviticus 27:1-8, nor that she did this to "seize her own destiny" in a presumably ultra-dominated male society where women would look for every way to "seize their own destiny" due to this oppression. Yet there was a female judge! I know anthropology teaches you to look at someone's culture from their perspective, but I honestly don't think anything regarding this has crossed that line.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm sorry to say but you're very ignorant or simply like quarreling (which is a sin - Proverbs 17:19) to think a simple discussion always needs insults. If I have failed with anything is to point out to an arrogant and ignorant runt like you why you're wrong. I addressed all of his points, as far as I saw them, so saying I didn't address any of his points is just your ridiculous polemic, so I'm not the one who is simply throwing around empty words - newsflash: it's you. I don't see how it reflects negatively on Jephthah at all if he had to righteously fulfill a vow that his daughter righteously accepted. I'm sure many atheists would see a problem just like they see one with Abraham's righteous willingness to sacrifice his only (legitimate heir) son - Isaac.

Sigh, so sayeth the arrogant person that simply rants and raves without addressing a word brought forth. It's too bad for the child that in either view, Jephthah is pretty negatively seen, no matter what. Do you actually have anything to say or do you just rant and rave for the sake of ranting and raving?

It's not my ignorance that is astounding, it's yours, dear friend. Every (sane) scholar knows Jesus existed, but how can you prove that He made claims about Himself being God unless you assume the Gospel to be 100% reliably Jesus' words - most scholars don't. So what you have to do is show the Gospel to be reliable. But once you've done that, you've already shown the Gospels are historically reliable and that Jesus probably rose from the dead. Now, perhaps if you could show that His sayings such as the ones about Him saying He is God are reliable, then you would have a case for the Trilemma. However, it would be much easier to show that the History of the Gospel Tradition as a whole is reliable and authentic than for specific sayings, so that simply goes back to the original problem with the Trilemma.

More ranting and raving and show you don't have a clue what you are talking. Most scholars do not? Really? Your evidence of this is what? Oh, an assertion made up on the spot because you can't deal with the arguments. Now child, let us follow us slowly, if the Bible is right on the things that it can be tested on, is there a valid reason to doubt the rest of it or do you just make up stuff like this on the spot because you don't understand what you're speaking? WLC did not use the Trilemma argument anywhere, you're just making up stuff, on the spot because you are too full of yourself to see how ignorant you really are.

An argument about Jesus' resurrection would never assume the Gospels are as reliable as you (and I) do. That's what someone familiar with a debate style would know. Key assumptions do not extend nearly this far, and you should probably know this. I wouldn't use the Trilemma with someone who said Jesus was a myth either, but you certainly can't use it with someone like Ehrman (who does say Jesus existed), and the reason is because Ehrman and other non-conservative scholars don't accept these parts of the Gospels as authentic. This is what the "hundreds of hours" have slowly and painfully molded my mind to understand whereas before I did indeed think the Trilemma was a very good proof.

Just a strawmen since we test the Gospels in things we can't test it on (such as in anthropology or archeology) and go from there. I think you're just making up stuff because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

It's not me who doesn't understand. It's you who can't take a hint and actually try to learn instead of trying to throw arguments around, and I do say try: you're not very good at it.

An assertion is not an argument. You really should try to learn the difference.

I've read most of his arguments: I wouldn't be here in the first place if I hadn't read so many.

Too bad you show you don't understand the stuff you speak of. Do you even know what the Trilemma argument is? Give you a hint, believing that Jesus really was what he claim isn't the Trilemma argument at all.

Why am I supposed to be briefing Clinton about his use of insults - is he a believer, part of a Christian community? If he were, and I were seeing his behavior somewhere online, I might say something. Just because he throws insults and others do, doesn't mean you can. Furthermore, this is not an old "age of the idea" argument at all. In today's world, you and Holding's despicable behavior quite frankly would turn away many from considering Christianity and that is without a doubt a sin (1 Corinthians 8). In Jesus' day it may not have been that way, but today it is - as Paul said, "I try by all means to save some", "to the Jew I became a Jew, to the Greek a Greek".

In other words, you have no clue what you're speaking about and just making up stuff because you can't deal with the arguments. BTW what is my behavior in most of my interactions, in the real world? Do you what it is or do you just assume you do? Arrogant idiots like you, I give zero respect to, but those that deserve it, get it. Do you understand that or do I need to repeat it because you don't know what you're talking about?

It's not explaining evidence away at all, nor is it ad hoc (I'm starting to suspect you don't know what that means and are just throwing it around). I clearly cited the example of John 18:22-23 and that's not ad hoc at all - it's an example. And from the way you and Holding are acting, you seem to be trying to insult anyone who disagrees with you. That doesn't convince people to support your arguments, even if you're right, and so an atheist or unbeliever will walk away from a discussion with you or Holding after the second sentence. Aside from the fact that Paul tells Timothy to instruct those who oppose him with gentleness and love (1 Timothy ) - true sometimes these fail, but certainly not when you start from 0 to 60 in 2 seconds.

Throwing out random Bible verses without regard to context does not deal with the argument, it is an attempt to explain away the evidence. Jesus was not always nice to people. I proved it, you ignored it and throw out random Bible verses since you couldn't deal with the point. Second, JPH has already dealt with the objection in his articles and you would know this if you bother to read him. 1 Timothy is talking about personal interactions while other parts are not. If you sent me a PM, I might respond a bit, but if you showed me the ego you got here, I'd largely ignore you since there is nothing to be gained. Do you understand that or does it need to be repeated elsewhere?

Paul having said to judge carefully has nothing to do with what I said. People will judge you careless despite the opposite being better which is why he doesn't act like you - but acts so that his conscience won't be judged (1 Corinthians 10).

Your own attitude shows that you think you're right and everybody else is wrong. Besides, I hate to break up your delusions, but people judge no matter what thus the Bible says nothing against judging idiot, it says to judge carefully. Which I find I am spot on since you make zero attempt to correct your silly errors and just make excuses for yourself, while of course, showing a very passive-aggressive attitude.

Do you even know who Werner Georg Kummel is? Willi Marxsen? Rudolf Bultmann? But I should definitely get some if not all of NT Wright's books. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem you reflect the research with your arguments, nor the Christian faith with your attitude.

Yes I do and no wonder your arguments are so poor, you use at least one bad source right there (Rudolf Bultmann isn't that great). Perhaps though you can show your personal opinion should be taken as fact or do you fail to see your own arrogant attitude, on display?

Papias may have been a disciple of John but that doesn't mean he was never wrong. For example, his account of the death of Judas is completely different from that of Acts (and Matthew - which I find the two to be harmonious). Papias reflects semi-developed legends mixed with some authentic information on the words and actions of Christ.

You do know that people have wrote on this topic and see something different, right? You really should try to research this stuff instead of just going off from whatever you want to hear.

There is nothing about Matthew's Gospel that makes more sense in Arabic (I think you meant Aramaic) or Hebrew except for the words of Christ, which makes sense because He spoke Aramaic. Matthew certainly used oral (reliable) tradition but he overtook Mark and the Greek coincidentally ad verbatim similarities between Mark Matthew and Luke show that: there is nothing wrong with Matthew having used Mark - instead of using the Christian oral tradition, he used Christian written history! How much better. And just because the society of the 1st century was very oral, doesn't mean everything written was originally either a composition or from oral tradition - many authors from the 4th century BC and on have incorporated or paraphrased works of others. For example, Cicero does this with at least one or two ancient Greek philosophers - incorporates some of their work. So clearly, one could use another work, especially if the author of Mark was an important Christian presbyter, which would have made communication with Matthew (perhaps written in Antioch), and thus Matthew would have had access to Mark. The Gospel of Thomas does this with all 4 (including John) Gospels, though certainly not in the same way but with the Gnostic heresy in mind.

Lots of assertions because that's funny, Craig Bloomberg disagrees and he's a scholars on these issues, but what does he know? Now do your research and stop with the assertions. It doesn't help you case out here at all.

First of all, the heresy of Arianism being described as a "devised madness" and the perpetuators being called "ignorant" and ones that "deceive men into wrong thoughts about Christ" and "scatter with the devil" is nothing compared to your sinful insults. 1) They were combatting a major heresy. 2) They weren't talking about Jephthah's daughter. 3) They don't use the insults you do, and I've used the most insulting-sounding one, and don't have a problem with it in the proper context (you and Holding): ignorant.

Oh really? Perhaps you can explain, in detail, what is so 'sinful' about my insults? Oh that's right, you can't, but I would think calling them a bunch of liars and deceivers would be quite insulting, but you seem to hand wave away anything that personally disagrees with you because you can't address it. Quite revealing. Second, what does it have to do with combating a 'major heresy'? Another made up excuse I see. Third, what does it matter what topic they were discussing? Are you just making up more things because you can't deal with what was said? Finally, why are my insults so bad? Oh because you said so and thus, whatever Cujo says so it must be true! So in conclusion, you simply made up a bunch of excuses because you can't deal with the facts. How revealing.

The only one who is ignorant, is the one who:

1) Does not point out where I haven't answered Holding (typical polemic)
2) Does not have an actual example of ad hoc, but just throws it around such as when I cited Christ's humility despite calling the Pharisees what they were - ignorant, immoral men.
3) The one who thinks that starting a discussion with insults (like you) is ok.

Ranting and raving are not arguments, but assertions and no dear heart, you cited out of context verses and ignored anything that proved you wrong. Finally, your arrogance speaks all I need to see. You get everything you deserve. Now try again child and this time, show that you can think instead of just spouting up a bunch of assertions and made up arguments.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's not me who is deluded.

Oh you are, you're just too full of yourself to see the errors of your ways, much like the Pharisees were too. Thus you get everything you earn with your arrogant, holier then thou attitude.

[lilpixieofterror]

Not at all, Papias' testimony is demonstratably false on at least one point: the death of Judas. He says that Judas became bloated like a chariot and exploded (while walking). This doesn't square with a hanging at all.

You do know that Papias' testimony exist in fragments, right? You are also aware that people have said and written quite a bit on this topic, right?

[jpholding]

Quite simply you do not grasp the ideas that modern scholarship has (quite correctly as far as methodology) put forward. You think that Matthew was entirely Aramaic and that it was more or less entirely oral tradition.

From now on I will not waste any more time on this idiot. He was tested and failed.

1) I asked for QUOTE where I allegedly said that "the transmission of the Gospels was ENTIRELY oral tradition." Obviously this nincompoop is completely unable to produce a quote to substantiate his allegation, and even dishonestly shifts the goalposts (now changing his stance to "more or less"). He is a disgusting human being who willfully spreads false information about others and then will not admit his mistakes when called down on them. Likewise, he would not admit his inconsistency when I cited evilbible.com, and his error when I cited Neyrey. Those were tests. He failed miserably.

2) His last reply post on Jephthah did nothing more than repeat back points refuted multiple times, even ignoring new points (eg, Sarna and Potok on 'olah) or else adding gratuitous epicycles (eg, "Furthermore, the vow to consecrate Samuel is clearly intended for him to be given as an offering in Leviticus 27:1-8") to force-fit the data into his predetermined conclusions. This, and the constant appeal to "common sense," indicate a person incapable of rational discourse, mentally ossified, and without any concern for quality scholarship.

3) He has been told by someone who is authoritative on the matter (BronzeArcher) that his competence in social science matters is questionable. Yet he continues to make idiotic statements like, "I don't need to read books to know that the ancients didn't have a high sensitivity to shame the way you describe it" and "Especially with the example of Deborah (older woman or not - she was a woman so for her to achieve male-like status means the male oppression apparently did not exist" and "If she was fake-lamenting, then she was trying to fool people which clearly didn't work" -- using his own clumsy, ignorant readings of texts (verifying his mistakes with more mistakes).
He says, "I know anthropology teaches you to look at someone's culture from their perspective, but I honestly don't think anything regarding this has crossed that line." Well, it has. He needs an education in this arena. Badly.

It reflects you, and this sad attempt to twist my words shows that you are simply an ignorant petty man who thinks a debate is throwing around insults and trying to twist words. You know exactly what I mean by that and it's not that I don't try to find the truth

Yes, I do know exactly what you mean. You contrive, manipulate, dodge, and have nothing but arrogance as a supporting factor. To wit:

All I mean is that if something seems to be pointing away from Christianity, I would never accept it.

Bingo: Again, no clearer word needs to be said to indicate that the truth is not your priority.

And you're also remarkably stupid, to wit:

Not at all, Papias' testimony is demonstratably false on at least one point: the death of Judas. He says that Judas became bloated like a chariot and exploded (while walking). This doesn't square with a hanging at all.

Wow you're stupid. The statement by itself has the bearing of ridicule and sarcasm, and is no more meant to be taken literally than, "He's so fat he needs his own zip code."

He is not unbiased, but blind, wretched, miserable, poor, and naked -- and deserving of no more of my time than Tassman.

[cujo006]

I have another query for the slobbering dog.



Indeed?

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm

Which part of this is this in reference to? For some reason all the key words (trilemma, liar, lunatic) don't show up in a search.

I don't think William Lane Craig's rebuttal addresses Ehrman's point in his opening statement - namely that the Gospels (presumably) weren't written by eyewitnesses. William Lane Craig simply refutes Ehrman's horrible argument that "just because we can't/haven't walked on water, then Jesus didn't", and goes on with his formula. Craig's fact number 3 is completely undermined by the fact that we don't know how the appearances happened except from what the Gospels say. Thus he is assuming the Gospels to be 100% historical which I believe they are, though Ehrman does not, as he states in his opening.

[jpholding]

W He didn't use the Trilemma there, I got confused.

Test failed. Again.

The fact that you saw the need to bury this admission under mounds of irrelevant verbiage speaks for itself. I didn't ask for a summary of the debate. I didn't ask for a recital of how WLC allegedly misused the facts or what Ehrman said in reply. I asked, plain and simple, where the Trilemma was mentioned. Nothing more than that last sentence was needed. Yet you clearly feel the need to bury your egregious errors in some way.

This speaks volumes to your lack of honesty, your lack of integrity, and your will to obscure your errors with excuses, tangents, obfuscations, and falsehoods.

Therefore, by his own logic:

Thus Papias demonstratably has a corrupted tradition about Judas' death. Yet he is to be trusted about everything else? Surely not.

Thus the slobbering dog demonstrably has a corrupt way of doing business. Yet he is to be trusted about everything else? Surely not.

The end.

[cujo006]

Oh you are, you're just too full of yourself to see the errors of your ways, much like the Pharisees were too. Thus you get everything you earn with your arrogant, holier then thou attitude.

Wait, so according to you, the person (me) who doesn't think excessive insults is a good thing is "like the Pharisees", and you're the one who is correct? By the way, when you say "the Pharisees", you do know that Paul was a Pharisee and continued to call himself one, right? Oh, and my attitude is not that at all arrogant or acting like I'm all that, it's simply pointing out glaring errors in someone's attitude