MiddleMan

I have.

In my world, watching a man get savagely raped only holds a minute moment of morbid curiosity.

ten to the eleventh

I can only imagine two alternate avenues that Jason may take now:

1) He will simply not return to the debate.
2) He will argue that just because he could not come up with a plausible sequence, that that doesn't mean that such a sequence does not exist, and that the onus is still on Sean (who is doing a great job) to show that such a sequence is impossible, which, of course, he has already done.

My imagination, though, is limited, {comment deleted}, and may once again confound all realistic expectations. This idea leads me a to a third possibility:

3) Jason: "A seven-foot tall Wookie cannot be on Endor! Look at the monkey!"
Sean: Uhhhhh.... (head explodes)

map_sort_map

Well, he's always right, isn't he? No matter what. If he's wrong, that makes him even MORE right. If Jason says a Wookie can be on Endor, you can bet there's a seven foot tall Wookie on Endor. That's just the way it works!

Only three more to go with this trainwreck. I suspect Jason won't have much trouble complying with the "no new arguments in the closing statement" rule.

Jack the Bodiless

From Jason's latest effort:
I find it very difficult to relate to a mind so lost in self-delusion. How can Jason possibly pretend that this is not a contradiction?

rightshu

Well, God's personal emissary to planet Earth has spoken, ladies and gents. Guess we should all just pack up and go home, because only Admiral The Right Rev. Dr. Jason Gastrich holds the key to hermeneutical interpretation of the Bible. Apparently, he's able to discern (perhaps through the use of his very own Ummim(TM) and Thummim(R)) that Matthew 28:2 is a "flashback." Amazing. In-fucking-credible. I attempted to read the whole thing. I really did. But I just ate, and to feel chicken Kiev backing up on me when I haven't even read 20 lines is more than I can deal with. {Comments deleted}. Ugh.

Sven

What I find interesting is that Jason Gastrich has shown that he is less intellegent than a five year old child. Why? He claimed that any five year old child would have no problems to write a single story out of the accounts without any contradiction. In his latest post he had to concede that his story was wrong at (at least) one point (at the end of his latest post). Ergo...

Paul5204

So who necessarily cares if there are "contradictions?" Even if we conceded, I do, that the new testament is not "inerrant," that does not necessarily disprove the authenticity/historicity of any particular person and/or event. Would you doubt that car A hit car B from the rear simply because, while all interviewed witnesses clearly recollect car A as having struck car B from the rear, the witnesses were in conflict as to certain other details? As an attorney, I would kindly submit that I have never had a single case wherein the witnesses agreed on all points. It doesn't happen. All witnesses otherwise agree on the central point: the empty tomb. Apparently that was otherwise well known, and explained by the "opposition" as resulting from his disciples as having "stolen" the body [I use "stolen" because Roman law made the body the property of Caesar]. Needless to say [but I'm saying it anyway], the proponents claimed a resurrection from the dead.

Wiploc

There are many who claim the bible contains no errors.

If you accept this claim, they will use it as evidence that god exists, and also for evidence of whatever else (that you should burn witches; that homosexuality is an abomination; that gambling is a sin, not counting church bingo; that slavery is good; that slavery is bad; etc.) they claim the bible says.

For instance, in my debate with Gregory, Gregory says the bible is evidence that Jesus existed and that there was something weird about him. I think the bible is so tainted by error that even the existence of Jesus is questionable.

crc

Doctor X

Paul5204:

Welcome to the forums. Mind the hounds. . . .

The problem with the "multiple witness" theory and the NT is that NONE of the Synoptic authors or Jn are witnesses. Lk specifically admits this. The contradictions are too extraordinary. For example, Mt dates Junior's birth to before 4 BCE whereas Lk dates it to after 6 CE.

There are many witnesses and theories behind the JFK assassination--most of them agree on the date.

--J.D.

Asha'man

As an attorney, how can you fail to understand the importance of credible witnesses?

What happens if witness A claims the accident was in Detroit, and witness B claims it was in Chicago? At some point, they are no longer describing the same accident, or one witness is outright lying.

Why do police try to separate suspects when they question them? If the suspects produce stories that only agree on the most superficial points, but no others, then the police usually conclude that the suspects colluded on a cover story but are having to invent the details.

The contradictions in the NT point strongly towards a fabricated story, witnessed by none, rather than a badly remembered real event. Items such as the contradictory genealogies, irreconcilable birth dates, and especially incoherent post-crucifixion narratives, all add up to support this conclusion. Once you realize that outright fabrications exist in the story, you become utterly unable to tell where the fabrications stop and reality starts.

Current scholarship and historical studies have begun to propose that Jesus himself may have been a fabrication in the story, leaving nothing whatsoever of the story as real. While this may be an extreme view, it does illustrate the problem quite clearly: absolutely no ability to separate fictional elements of the story from real ones.