Wow, you go to all that trouble cherry picking the text and it’s simply a matter to point out John to make your whole house of cards collapse.
Begging your pardon, but exactly how am I cherry-picking the text? For one thing,
you picked the texts (Luke 23:46 and John 19:30). I simply parsed them (remember propositions P1 through P9 in my earlier post?). Then:
- I asked "Are we in agreement that this covers the salient information explicitly or necessarily conveyed by those two texts?" - a query to which you declined to respond.
- I said "If not, please indicate what propositions the text demands be added" - a query to which you declined to respond.
- I asked "If so, then can you tell me whether any proposition on the list is in formal contradiction with any other proposition(s) on the list?" - a query to which you declined to respond.
- I continued "And for that matter, whether any of them are contradicted by an assertion made in the hypothetical scenario?" - a query to which you declined to respond.
If you really think John is the key to your argument, why did you fail to respond each time, when John 19:30 was one of the texts parsed in my post? Will you choose to respond to those queries now?
Ahem, as soon as you step up and present evidence that shows two of the four gospels wrong.
An interesting
non sequitur. Moreover, as I have nowhere
asserted that two of the four Gospels are wrong in this regard, it is hardly incumbent on me to adduce
evidence of such a thing.
You responded but did not answer. If you dig back through the thread you’ll find the original question.
Normally I enjoy riddles, but this is tedious. If you have some question in mind for me from this 40-page thread that you think has been neglected, just ask it. If the question boils down to one you asked just a few posts back (namely,
"What was on the sign hanging above Jesus", to which I responded
"I don't know"), then just say so and be done with it.
Being dishonest again I see. It’s been pointed out earlier on this thread as well as being pointed out on the previous thread.
Again, the existence of a contradiction was alleged, but was not demonstrated.
Why are you defending this meaningless point so venomously anyway? If you’re going for biblical contradictions there are many more and much easier to identify.
I hardly think am defending anything
venomously (
i.e. maliciously; spitefully). Yet the larger importance lies herein (at least): if one can't successfully distinguish between what does and what doesn't constitute a logical contradiction in
this instance, how likely is it that one will be able successfully to make that distinction in
other instances?
Mephisto said:
I noticed you haven't posted since I wrote the above statement and perhaps I should explain it. The reference is from the Mel Brooks western comedy, Blazing Saddles. I was commenting on how beautifully you write.
I remember liking
Blazing Saddles, but I don't specifically recall that line. For some reason the film
Deliverance sprang to mind. Anyhow, thanks!
