offa

Offa;
I am willing to discuss any or all of the remarks I have made. How about one at a time?

I have offered several challenges (sp. the word does not look right, so I apologize for misspellings).

I want you to show me, anywhere, in the gospels, that the Jewish War of c. AD 70 is referenced. You take all your biblical scholars and show me a valid reference in the gospels to this war.

Now, you can pick me apart, on things I write. But I want one on one, you and me (and all your scholars). One argument. Show me any place in the gospels a mention of the War of AD 70.

We will work on the next ambiguous remarks I make,
like "find me a virgin who is not Hebrew, or, conversely, find me a non-Hebrew virgin."

Or, find (or show) me any where in the bible where it says that his feet were pierced..

Now, let's cut this circumstantial crap. One at a time.

O.K. Cowboy?

I am an atheist. My name is Offa. You can reach me at "fhupp47@accnorwalk.com". Choose you weapon my "fundie friend."

thanks,
offa

CX

Whoa there! Your "fundie friend"? I'm not a fundamentalist (I consider "fundie" an ignorant and inflammatory epithet that serves no purpose in rational debate). I'm not even a Xian nor do I have a belief in any particular god. You do seem awfully lathered up about something though so perhaps you can tell me what led you to this conclusion. Though I suppose it doesn't matter where you think I stand on the religious spectrum, but it is amusing that you've concluded I'm a fundamentalist Xian. That is what you're saying, yes? If not I apologize for misinterpreting you.

As to your challenge I already showed you where AMk (that is academic shorthand for the author of the Gospel of Mark) refers back to the destruction of the temple. Here is the exact verse (recall that this is the introduction to the "mini-apocalypse" which is paralleled in GMt:

GMk 13:2 "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

Now what does this refer to if not the destruction of the temple. Do you propose that Jesus actually uttered this as prophecy some 40 years before it took place? What other alternative can you suggest? And please don't start with literalist nit-picking. It is reasonably certain that GMk (academic shorthand for the Gospel of Mark) was written in Ephesus or at the very least within Asia Minor, probably around or immediately after 70 C.E. In this context it makes sense that AMk would be intimately aware of the destruction of the temple, but not the details. It is marginally possible that he is writing after the onset of the Jewish revolt, but before the actual destruction of the temple and is just making an obvious prediction. Like if immediately after 9/11 I had predicted "In time the Taliban strongholds and Al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan will be utterly destroyed."

The fact that the revolt went south almost immediately when 1st century Xians thought it was the onset of Armageddon and that Jesus would return any day caused a major crisis of faith for the Markan community we suppose given the tone and content of GMk so AMk works it into the narrative framework and AMt takes it up when he is redacting GMk, but Luke does not (probably because he seems more concerned with history).

What issue do you have with this analysis? I can provide references to reputable secular scholars who concur with this analysis (after all I'm just a dilletante. I didn't come up with this on my own), but is it really necessary?

Incidentally, if you are genuinely interested in reasoned debate try not to be such a penis. And avoid jumping to ridiculous conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence (is this how you came to the view you hold currently?} Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick I've never seen anyone who professed to be a nontheist get so worked up.

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

CX

And consider this:

GMt 24:15 "So when you see standing in the holy place `the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the
prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--

Do you not suppose that this refers to the Caesar desecrating the temple at Jerusalem by erecting a statue of himself there which is what initiated the revolt? If not then what is AMk (as redacted by AMt cf. GMk 13:14) talking about here?

CX

Those are the same thing. A non-Hebrew virgin would be a virgin that is not a Hebrew. I can see no distinction. And I'm not sure what you are getting at, but I suspect you are misusing language. "Virgin" is an English word. It has a prescribed meaning; someone who has never had intercourse. Obviously everyone ever born was a virgin for some period of time. Now if you are arguing about the Hebrew word for virgin, I'm afraid I can't oblige you, since I've little or no interest in the Torah and I don't know biblical Hebrew (further I strongly doubt you do either) I can say that there are 2 words in Hebrew which are close in meaning. I don't know the Hebrew words themselves but one roughly means "young woman" and the other roughly means "virgin". The prophecy in Isaiah about a "virigin that will conceive and bear a child" actually uses the former word and should be translated as young woman, but that kind of queers the deal for using Jesus' fictional virgin birth to connect him to messianic prophecy As a side note, the prophecy in Isaiah isn't a messianic one anyway and applies to the period in question not to Jesus 700 years later. But what does all this have to do with anything? Say for the sake of argument that there is no such thing as a non-Hebrew virgin. So what? I have no idea what kind of argument you could be setting up here, but I am most anxious to hear it. While your at it explain to me how I'm a fundamentalist given that I'm not a Xian and don't believe in god.

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

CX

Okay. I just reread the entire exchange between you and I because it was late last night and I thought I may have missed something. I have come to the conclusion that one of the following is true:

A)You are pulling my leg; In which case, good show. You got me.

B)You didn't read any of what I wrote in that exchange since I made it perfectly clear what my position on god was and I gave concrete answers to your questions which as yet you have not responded to except with a simple reiteration of the questions I already answered.

C)One of us is an idiot.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

Boro Nut

Make that two of us.

offa

offa: Thanks for the confession Boro Nut, I always felt you were an idiot.

CX

So are you going to reply or what? I'm told that any discourse with you is a waste of time. Is that true?

offa

Offa; I am currently way to busy to answer. My challenge was very poor timing. Now, CowboyX, I have realy enjoyed what you have written and am looking forward to a discussion.

Now, as far as being a fundie,I like using that tact to fire up my correspondents. I understand the Hebrew language. You know, dead is not dead and virgin is not virgin, and Egypt is not Egypt.


Now, I was toying with Boro Nut but he/she did not take the bait. Who are the two idiots, you and me, you and Boro Nut, or Me and Boro Nut?

He wrote "two of us" and there are three of us.
I have not been posting the last several months or so because I work too many hours and drink too much beer.

Thank you very much,
Offa

CX

1)I think he was sarcastically saying that he and I are the idiots because we have no idea what you are talking about

2)Calling someone a fundie who is an open atheist only makes you look like a dingus.

3)What study of Hebrew have you done?

4)What is your favorite color?