cujo006's Rebuttal to JP Holding Re: Jephthah

[jpholding]

Now check this out: The first paragraph and the second (three sentences) one are from completely different posts!

Doesn't matter, dumbo. The statements each by themselves are what you won for. Two statements, two reasons for an award. That's the normal procedure in the Screwballs: when some screwball makes multiple screwy statements, they are collected as an anthology.

Once again you screwed up and slandered someone because you failed to check your facts.

[jpholding]

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.

Hey jp . . . 'sup.

Yeah well....I am an artist, too, after all.

[lilpixieofterror]

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

And how are the insults used 'obsessive'? Because you think it is? This is the nonsense I am referring to and the excuses you made up to avoid seeing the insults given by Jesus, the apostles, and the church fathers with stuff like, "DUH! They were responding to heretics!" shows you can't deal with the objects brought forth. Finally, yes your attitude is as arrogant as they come, IE your appeals to your own authority over actual answer is among those. I know where my heart is and so does God, do your know where yours is?

[cujo006]

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.

Well I provided a quote, but for the record, a little time spent with an abacus will tell you why a 3 year old child won't be able to make excuses "long ago" for their bad behavior. Plus, 1-2 years ago is not now. Plus, I provided a quote and I stand by my statement that you're in error about Matthew being mostly oral tradition and an Aramaic text.

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.

The quote I provided above (post #87) shows that you think Matthew is mostly oral tradition.

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.

I'm sorry but only your delusion will think 100% is very different from 99%.

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.

That's not falsehood at all. A scribe using his own written material, if you mean that he wrote it and then collected it - is the same thing as having used oral tradition. Of course that would be paralleled in the oral tradition - that's where he got it from. If you're saying he collected written material from elsewhere - from where? And how do you know this? And what is your evidence for more than 2 sources (Mark and Q)?

Another childish excuse/evasion for your slanderous behavior.

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. But hey, the chariot's part of the joke too -- it's the "zip code". The only bigger joke around here...is YOU.

Do you honestly think Matthew was describing Judas "all choked up" with grief whereas in the example you cite in 1 Samuel 17:23 Ahitophel hangs himself - and Judas is this type by "being choked up with grief" only? Come now, does that sound plausible to you?

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.

The text describes Judas as impious not because he is bloated but because he betrayed Christ. And the "for" simply contributes to the sadness of his impiety - being bloated (as a punishment) and what happens to him - being crushed by a chariot. There's no need to see Judas' former life into the first sentence at all, with a plain reading.

[cujo006]

And how are the insults used 'obsessive'? Because you think it is? This is the nonsense I am referring to and the excuses you made up to avoid seeing the insults given by Jesus, the apostles, and the church fathers with stuff like, "DUH! They were responding to heretics!" shows you can't deal with the objects brought forth. Finally, yes your attitude is as arrogant as they come, IE your appeals to your own authority over actual answer is among those. I know where my heart is and so does God, do your know where yours is?

I personally see a clear difference from both the reasons you throw insults, and their extent, between you and Jesus and the apostles. It's not for me to be asking you what is excessive. That's a question you answer for yourself to your own conscience before God. I would never be able to fully be convinced that I'm doing something ok by saying the things you've said (the reasons, and extent). How am I appealing to my own authority if I quoted Romans and Malachi on this? I've given reasons for the rest of the things and why I think them

[lilpixieofterror]

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.

That is because that is just what you do. You asserted that 'most scholars say X', but you have not shown that, you asserted it, without evidence. Do you have a hard time understanding these basic things?

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:

Since my conscience is perfectly clear and I see no issues with insulting somebody with a bloated ego like you, there is no problem. Thanks for undermining your own argument.

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:



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

I love the Bible copy and paste game and the throwing out assertions you can not prove. I am convinced it is not wrong and I have produced examples of why it isn't wrong. You have made up excuses for all of these examples and keep asserting you are right, over and over again. Anyway, you are aware that Malachi is referring to people who have fallen away and dishonor God, right? Since I do not dishonor God and have produced more then enough examples, from both the Bible and the saints of the church that support the use of insults, you really got nothing beyond passive-aggressive, brow beating like this. Bottom line, I do not hate you nor do I do any of this out of spite. It is just calling a spade a spade and proving it. Now do you got anything actual to respond with or do you just throw up as much space filler as possible, without addressing a word that was said?

[cujo006]

Doesn't matter, dumbo. The statements each by themselves are what you won for. Two statements, two reasons for an award. That's the normal procedure in the Screwballs: when some screwball makes multiple screwy statements, they are collected as an anthology.

Once again you screwed up and slandered someone because you failed to check your facts.

Now, do you honestly want me to think that someone who goes on your website and reads that is going to think that? Of course you're being deceptive on purpose and now you're trying to cover it up. Come on, the game is up Holding. You're just trying to do the very things you're accusing me of: the entire time you're the one who has tried to put alternate meanings into things I've said, this being one example. Just be honest and don't do that next time.

[lilpixieofterror]

I personally see a clear difference from both the reasons you throw insults, and their extent, between you and Jesus and the apostles.

Really? So you know this because you have magical mind reading powers? Show how my use of insults is 'excessive' or is that an assertion that you made up because you can't deal with the arguments produced?

It's not for me to be asking you what is excessive. That's a question you answer for yourself to your own conscience before God. I would never be able to fully be convinced that I'm doing something ok by saying the things you've said (the reasons, and extent).

I'm quite fine there, so do you have anything else beyond passive-aggressive brow beating to present forward that shows otherwise or is your ego really that bloated that you think you can read the hearts and minds of people you do not know?

How am I appealing to my own authority if I quoted Romans and Malachi on this? I've given reasons for the rest of the things and why I think them

The fact you thrown out the assertion that I am 'obsessive insulting'. How do you know this? Do you see me on a daily bases and see all of my interactions online and off line to know this? In truth, I would say 90% of my total interactions are insult free. So sorry, I do not see how I am being 'obsessively insulting' can you prove this or will this remain a baseless assertion that you can't back up and will just run away from?

[cujo006]

That is because that is just what you do. You asserted that 'most scholars say X', but you have not shown that, you asserted it, without evidence. Do you have a hard time understanding these basic things?



Since my conscience is perfectly clear and I see no issues with insulting somebody with a bloated ego like you, there is no problem. Thanks for undermining your own argument.




I love the Bible copy and paste game and the throwing out assertions you can not prove. I am convinced it is not wrong and I have produced examples of why it isn't wrong. You have made up excuses for all of these examples and keep asserting you are right, over and over again. Anyway, you are aware that Malachi is referring to people who have fallen away and dishonor God, right? Since I do not dishonor God and have produced more then enough examples, from both the Bible and the saints of the church that support the use of insults, you really got nothing beyond passive-aggressive, brow beating like this. Bottom line, I do not hate you nor do I do any of this out of spite. It is just calling a spade a spade and proving it. Now do you got anything actual to respond with or do you just throw up as much space filler as possible, without addressing a word that was said?

You don't need to be hateful to commit a sin - if you have doubt that it's wrong to throw insults, then that's a sin already. I will give you a piece of advice:

1) Never go into a debate as fiercely as you have now if it's possible for you to confuse Papias' testimony with St. Polycarp (I don't say this out of hate but simply to point out that you're the one who is simply being arrogant without knowledge)
2) Keep reading scholarship but don't read only Christians - read skeptics too
3) Quit insulting people simply because they disagree with you (or Holding)

[cujo006]

Really? So you know this because you have magical mind reading powers? Show how my use of insults is 'excessive' or is that an assertion that you made up because you can't deal with the arguments produced?



I'm quite fine there, so do you have anything else beyond passive-aggressive brow beating to present forward that shows otherwise or is your ego really that bloated that you think you can read the hearts and minds of people you do not know?



The fact you thrown out the assertion that I am 'obsessive insulting'. How do you know this? Do you see me on a daily bases and see all of my interactions online and off line to know this? In truth, I would say 90% of my total interactions are insult free. So sorry, I do not see how I am being 'obsessively insulting' can you prove this or will this remain a baseless assertion that you can't back up and will just run away from?

I never said obsessive - I said excessive (twice).

[lilpixieofterror]

You don't need to be hateful to commit a sin - if you have doubt that it's wrong to throw insults, then that's a sin already.

So that means Jesus, the apostles, and the church saints were sinning when they used insults. Thanks for undermining your own arguments again and showing that you're not interested in listening to the evidence brought forth. You are here to spread mistruth and support your own ego, thus you'll get the treatment you earn.

I will give you a piece of advice:

I do not need advice from an ego centered person like you, but I will listen and respond to it anyway.

1) Never go into a debate as fiercely as you have now if it's possible for you to confuse Papias' testimony with St. Polycarp (I don't say this out of hate but simply to point out that you're the one who is simply being arrogant without knowledge)

Funny, I admitted I was mistaken when it was pointed out, which shows I have quite a bit of humility and am more then willing to admit to errors, when pointed out. You haven't, but instead you made up excuses for your own errors and tried to bury your mistakes instead of admitting to them. Sorry, but you might want to take your own advice here and admit that you misrepresented JPH's position instead of trying to spin your way out and bury your mistake under piles and piles of needless ranting.

2) Keep reading scholarship but don't read only Christians - read skeptics too

Nice, too bad I have read both skeptics and Christians. I have copies from atheist authors like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc right along aside Christian authors like GK Chesterton or NT Wright. So perhaps you shouldn't assume things about people that you do not know.

3) Quit insulting people simply because they disagree with you (or Holding)

Wrong here too. I do not insult you for 'simply disagreeing', I insult you for your bloated ego and your refusal to admit to errors. I disagree with a number of people and guess what, I do not insult them. So sorry, you're wrong here too.

All together, your advice shows how much of an ego centered person you really are. You do not admit to your mistakes, but feel the minor mistakes of others is a huge deal to point out. You think I do not read atheist sources, I read material from all sorts of faith and belief systems, including atheist ones. I also do not insult people for disagreeing with me, since I can give you links to tons of people that I disagreed with and still had a decent conversation with them. Sorry, you're 'advice' is rubbish and I would suggest that you first take care of your own problems, before you try to fix the problems of others.

[lilpixieofterror]

I never said obsessive - I said excessive (twice).

You do know that obsessive and excessive are synonyms, right?

[jpholding]

Well I provided a quote,

You provided slander, you pretentious, revolting jackass.

The quote I provided above (post #87) shows that you think Matthew is mostly oral tradition.

Like I said, stupid -- Matthew was a scribe. He wrote his own notes. Because you are so abominably stupid, you never even considered that as an option when I said he didn't use Mark or Q. Instead, in your pathetic and sorrowful, narrow-minded ignorance, you decided that oral tradition was the ONLY option, and then proceeded to spread a slander about me on that basis.

That's not falsehood at all. A scribe using his own written material, if you mean that he wrote it and then collected it - is the same thing as having used oral tradition.

WHAT!

No. That's just another example -- the clearest one yet -- of how your childish dishonesty compels you to twist and distort and smash together concepts and facts to make it seem like you were never wrong. That is NOT the same thing as using oral tradition. By NO possible stretch of meaning.

Do you honestly think Matthew was describing Judas "all choked up" with grief whereas in the example you cite in 1 Samuel 17:23 Ahitophel hangs himself - and Judas is this type by "being choked up with grief" only? Come now, does that sound plausible to you?

Further proof, if any were needed, that you pay no attention to what people say or write because you arrogantly consider what they have to say beneath you. If you HAD paid attention and read carefully, you would see that the "choked up" point and the Ahitophel points are two different explanations, and that I reject the first one as possible, but not likely. So it is. Once again you prove your stunning indifference to truth, your contemptuous disregard for others, and your willingness to slander and spread falsehood.

And the "for" simply contributes to the sadness of his impiety

Typical contrived non-answer. There is nothing "impious" about being bloated or being crushed by a chariot. My point stands untouched and unaddressed.

Now, do you honestly want me to think that someone who goes on your website and reads that is going to think that?

Yes. You're the only one stupid enough (or paranoid enough) so far to think otherwise in 8 or so years of Screwball collections. Not that it matters, since it is clear also by multiple examples of such anthologies over the last 8 or so years.

To prove this, look at the one just above your entry:

More from franktalk on how to get reliable info:

Don't listen to anyone. Don't trust anyone. Go directly to God for answers. That is the only way to obtain truth. Even if I knew what was true I would have to form that truth into words, so I would in essence interpret it. Then you would hear it but it would be filtered by your worldly experiences so you would get a twice twisted message. Everything on these boards needs to be filtered by truth. Seek truth which does not come from man.

It is by the contradiction that we understand the correct path which is not of men. Your logic knows by common sense that what I said makes no sense because I stated to not trust what I stated. But how does one seek an answer to a contradiction of that nature? That answer lays outside of man. And outside of man's logic. Only when one has a foundation of truth from God can one converse with others who have that same communication. But that conversation seems strange and full of error when viewed by the world. The things of God make no sense to someone who has embraced the world.

The first one was from post #565 by JB. The second one was from post #647 by Sparko. Clearly, I have anthologized the two statements.

Your admission of error, and apology, is warranted, but, due to your excessive arrogance, dishonesty, and megalomania, is not expected.

[RumTumTugger]

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:

ooh a little transference here I see.

Pot, kettle black.

[RumTumTugger]

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.

the only one not using critical thinking here is you with your black and white reading of the bible instead of taking things in their whole context.