cujo006's Rebuttal to JP Holding Re: Jephthah

[cujo006]

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

The end.

Why is it relevant that he wasn't using the Trilemma. I saw that debate 1-2 years ago and all I remember was that he was using an argument that I used until I, as far as I see it, discovered it to be unusuable. The reference to WLC's error is the main point and that seems fairly true.

[cujo006]

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.

Ok, ok, tempers may have flared, but I'm just saying I don't think Papias is as reliable as most of us see him - he is indeed wrong about Judas' death, it's not an argument that Judas was too big to walk around, but simply that Papias' account doesn't add up with a hanging as Matthew says. Wouldn't you agree that a man who hung himself surely wasn't walking around bloated before he died?

[Xru]

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.

Geez jp . . . can I ever hold out hope that I can insult like you can. I don't think I'll ever be able to do it. You do it with such finesse.

BTW, I really wish you wouldn't mention Tasman . . . I''m out of my anti-emetics;)

[cujo006]

Geez jp . . . can I ever hold out hope that I can insult like you can. I don't think I'll ever be able to do it. You do it with such finesse.

BTW, I really wish you wouldn't mention Tasman . . . I''m out of my anti-emetics;)

Trust me, you don't want to shipwreck your faith just so you can try to seem entertaining.

[jpholding]

Why is it relevant that he wasn't using the Trilemma.

Because you said he did and you used it as a way to brand WLC as incompetent.

The reference to WLC's error is the main point and that seems fairly true.

Spare me the excuses and the drivel. You irresponsibly slandered WLC, based on a falsehood, and that is how you operate, as you did also with me numerous times (eg, false report re Matthew and Aramaic). You don't check your facts. You don't care what you say before you mouth off and slander others. You spread misinformation like the bubonic plague. If you had the least bit of decency you'd shut up and resolve hereafter to check yourself on details with caution and concern before you run your fat lips.

Wouldn't you agree that a man who hung himself surely wasn't walking around bloated before he died?

It doesn't even clearly say he was walking around, you dipstick. It's meant to be insulting, like "he's so fat he needs his own zip code." Are you so dull-witted that if someone says that, you'll go out and check the relative size of various zip code regions and say, "Gee, that sure is wrong. There's no zip code anywhere that's the size of a fat man. Duh hah."

Do yourself and your reputation a favor...shut up and stop insulting your betters with these "common sense" evaluations you pull out of your backside.

[Xru]

Trust me, you don't want to shipwreck your faith just so you can try to seem entertaining.

I'm already on shore and building my little shelter.

I see a time and place for passionate and inflammatory rhetoric.

Perhaps not as much as jp throws out . . . well, certainly not as much as jp throws out. But there are times when thoughtful words fail.

Even if I disagreed with jp . . . which I don't often do, I'd never debate with him because of his rhetoric. I don't find it becoming at all, but that's his style.

If confronted with a zipper-head or motor-head I prefer quick pithy insults rather than the rants he goes on and then just close things down.

jp is jp that's not going to change.

Hey jp . . . 'sup.

[Xru]

Do yourself and your reputation a favor...shut up and stop insulting your betters with these "common sense" evaluations you pull out of your backside.

Nice

[cujo006]

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?

...

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.

There's really no point in discussing this further with you since all you do is accuse of ad hominems (I'm not sure you know what that is), and empty assertions. Here's how I see it:

In Romans 14:22-23 Paul says that a person who has a clear conscience isn't sinning even if it seems offensive to someone else:

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

In Malachi 3:13-4:3 God answers the charges of some Israelites that there is no use following God's law because the evil in many cases prosper and flourish:

“You have spoken arrogantly against me,” says the LORD.
“Yet you ask, ‘What have we said against you?’

“You have said, ‘It is futile to serve God. What do we gain by carrying out his requirements and going about like mourners before the LORD Almighty? But now we call the arrogant blessed. Certainly evildoers prosper, and even when they put God to the test, they get away with it.’”

Then those who feared the LORD talked with each other, and the LORD listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the LORD and honored his name.
“On the day when I act,” says the LORD Almighty, “they will be my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as a father has compassion and spares his son who serves him. And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.

“Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the LORD Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act,” says the LORD Almighty.

Now, knowing that Paul says that if you do something which you doubt, it's a sin, (even in the slightest - you must be fully convinced; Romans 14:5), can you honestly tell me that when you throw insults like that you are fully convinced it's not wrong? I can assure you, I am fully convinced about nearly every word I've written in this whole thread (the exceptions are not big and they happened after the fact, more or less by accident). So if you're not, read what God says in Malachi 3:13-4:3

[Darth Executor]

I'm already on shore and building my little shelter.

I see a time and place for passionate and inflammatory rhetoric.

Perhaps not as much as jp throws out . . . well, certainly not as much as jp throws out. But there are times when thoughtful words fail.

Even if I disagreed with jp . . . which I don't often do, I'd never debate with him because of his rhetoric. I don't find it becoming at all, but that's his style.

If confronted with a zipper-head or motor-head I prefer quick pithy insults rather than the rants he goes on and then just close things down.

jp is jp that's not going to change.

Hey jp . . . 'sup.

Cancel your Internet subscription.

[cujo006]

Because you said he did and you used it as a way to brand WLC as incompetent.



Spare me the excuses and the drivel. You irresponsibly slandered WLC, based on a falsehood, and that is how you operate, as you did also with me numerous times (eg, false report re Matthew and Aramaic). You don't check your facts. You don't care what you say before you mouth off and slander others. You spread misinformation like the bubonic plague. If you had the least bit of decency you'd shut up and resolve hereafter to check yourself on details with caution and concern before you run your fat lips.

Excuse me? I'm the one slandering? I wrote that stuff years ago and you do claim Matthew is entirely Aramaic and how much of it do you consider not to be oral tradition? 5%? By the way, I will find the quote where you say something like all of it being oral tradition. You try to prove it piece by piece. There is no need to spread misinformation: the evidence is right here with your take on Judges 11 - you don't use critical thinking and that's it. Whether WLC was wrong about the Trilemma or a different argument, he is still just as wrong about it - I slandered no one; you're the only one doing it with your abrasive and repulsive attitude of a 5 year old who wants to have his way. Sorry, that's not how the world works.

It doesn't even clearly say he was walking around, you dipstick. It's meant to be insulting, like "he's so fat he needs his own zip code." Are you so dull-witted that if someone says that, you'll go out and check the relative size of various zip code regions and say, "Gee, that sure is wrong. There's no zip code anywhere that's the size of a fat man. Duh hah."

Do yourself and your reputation a favor...shut up and stop insulting your betters with these "common sense" evaluations you pull out of your backside.

Judas walked about in this world a sad1743 example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.

It's clear that he thought Judas was alive and crushed by a chariot. Am I still wrong?

[Xru]

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.

Now this just really sucks big time. 10 . . . yes . . . 10 amens for this one post. Grrrr . . .. Even I amen'ed it.

Grammar Nazi alert.

[cujo006]

It is now time to take a closer look at these twin theses, and to do so with a fresh eye towards determining the matter contextually. Theorists of QM (Q and Marcan priority), as noted, inevitably resist findings that undermine their paradigm and merely mold the theory to accomodate the facts. Thus for example, original arguments that certain forms of similarity were only explicable by direct written copying were not abandoned when further research uncovered the reliability of oral transmission in the ancient world; rather, that point has been ignored, or else the correspondences have been re-emphasized as though to make the idea of oral transmission less likely; or else, it has been absorbed into the paradigm only when needed to keep the theory (as Stein, 139, who suggests oral tradition as one way to explain Matthew and Luke agreements against Mark which speak against a Q hypothesis -- if this can be used here, why not to explain differences to begin with?).

What does this mean? If Matthew didn't use Mark and Q, and is based on oral tradition, how much of it is oral tradition? 99%?

[Xru]

Cancel your Internet subscription.

Yo DE . . . 'sup.

Hope you aren't still angry with me for ganging up on you with LT:)

[cujo006]

Ok, so now we definitely know who the slanderer is: I'm already famous at tektoonics! Check it out: http://www.tektoonics.com/test/parody/mar12scr.html

Here's what he has about me:

However, I've seen enough of Mike Licona's, Nick Peters', and JP Holdings and many other apologists' works to know that their arguments are not really based on solid argumentation in the major areas they're discussing. Holding for example should never comment on the authenticity of the Gospels until he actually looks into his theories about them and sees how faulty they are. Just look at William Lane Craig's debate with Bart Ehrman and watch him slowly disintegrate. Now I am not applauding Bart Ehrman at all. Bart Ehrman's arguments are completely absurd. But so are Craig's, Holdings', Licona's, and I'm pretty positive about Peters' (I've only seen attacks on Geisler which reflect the same type of mistakes more or less).

I don't need to read any books. You simply need to actually learn to criticize your own logic. Nothing you've said here has refuted anything.

Now check this out: The first paragraph and the second (three sentences) one are from completely different posts! (first one is from post #9, the second one is from post #20! Here's all of what I say in the second paragraph with his original statement:

Your version of reality where the honor-and shame society is exaggerated to such a degree as you imagine it simply does not exist. This is demonstratably not true by the fact that none of the conquered Canaanites after Joshua's Conquest killed themselves suicidally the way Japanese warriors did in WW2 ...

Good night you are profoundly stupid. The examples from Japan ARE comparable; you are simply monumentally ignorant as explained. Actually, stupid, this just again shows how ignorant you are. The persons in question ended up choosing shame -- and lived with the regret the rest of their lives. The comparison would be to a person with a choice between suicide and living with exceptional pain due to a disease like cancer. Those who choose shame in such situations live the rest of their lives as ones designated as having NO honor. Some likewise choose pain over death. In both cases what is most likely at stake is some forlorn hope that the pain/shame will someday be relieved. Some people grasp any hope they can -- I'd say most do. But if they knew for sure there'd never be relief, the same people would choose death. Try reading some works by real social science scholars when you're done with your coloring books.

The examples from Japan are not comparable to the extent you wish them to be. You simply invent things out of thin air. The "shame" the Arameans chose (a whole army) is in no way equatable to someone having the pain of cancer, I'm sorry to say. For many people to live with having lost a battle is a pretty good way to live and apparently so for the ancients as well. If every one of the Canaanites chose the supposed pain of shame then obviously this wasn't the pain your honor-shame society has in the ancient world. I don't need to read any books. You simply need to actually learn to criticize your own logic. Nothing you've said here has refuted anything.

The bold part is what he put underneath my first paragraph to make it seem as if I wrote all of it. And then he says that I'm the one who slanders! The logic of this is irrefutable indeed!

[jpholding]

Excuse me? I'm the one slandering?

Yes, you are slandering. "I wrote that stuff years ago" is no excuse for that, and does not make it any less slanderous; moreover, you repeated it HERE, recently, and the fact that you think this is some sort of excuse you can use in this context further demonstrates your moral incapacity, and your indifference to your own degeneracy. Excuses like "I wrote that long ago" are the sort of thing that is said by a child of 3 trying to make excuses for their bad behavior. How dare you slander WLC -- and others -- and then engage is such pettifogging as a way to get out of it.

and you do claim Matthew is entirely Aramaic and how much of it do you consider not to be oral tradition? 5%?

I didn't dispute anything about Aramaic; I disputed what you said about oral tradition ONLY. Once again you obfuscate and insert diversions as a despicable way to vainly nullify your falsehoods.

What percent I think is oral tradition is of no relevance, whether it is 5% or 99%. The point is that you fabricated and then slandered me by inventing wholesale the idea that I thought it was 100%. That is a lie. It is an invention purely your own, fabricated for no other purpose than to slander me. It is clear that you can't be honest about even small points like this one.

In point of fact, I have not quantified the data at all. IIf I had to make a rough estimate at all, I would say that only certain narrative portions of Matthew are based on oral tradition entirely. I would also say that Matthew himself (a scribe) put together most of his own written material, and that furthermore, what he wrote is paralleled in the oral traditions (a point you'd know about, if you had the least knowledge of how orality and literacy interacted in the ancient world, and also had you studied my material carefully; hence once again, you carelessly use my material). But again, this is all beside the point. The point is, you posted a falsehood for rhetorical purposes.

Whether WLC was wrong about the Trilemma or a different argument, he is still just as wrong about it

Another childish excuse/evasion for your slanderous behavior.

Judas walked about in this world a sad1743 example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.

It's clear that he thought Judas was alive and crushed by a chariot. Am I still wrong?

Yes, you are. It says Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety. Dumbo: What's "impious" about having a swollen body? And how could those last few moments of his life equate with walking around "in this world"? The reference there is clearly to his life prior to his death. Chances are the quote is lacking contextual features which explain the fragmentary nature of this expression. But in the end, it is not a reference to him walking along when a chariot crushes him.

As for the chariot part, you have more problems than you realize:

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html

Conrad's thesis resolves all of that nicely. No hanging. Luke says he "fell headlong" and that makes perfect sense of him becoming roadkill at the same time, if we want to take Papias literally. But hey, the chariot's part of the joke too -- it's the "zip code". The only bigger joke around here...is YOU.