False Prophet=Joseph Smith=Brigham Young

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Paging Grindael...

[_grindael]

"No proof? The text has Jesus say that his second coming will occur before the deaths of people living at the time he prophesied. This did not happen. Challenge my reading and I will be happy to fully engage your argument. Telling me I offered nothing and am just wrong because you say so doesn't cut it. If you'd like to engage this argument directly I'd be perfectly happy to respond. I already did that for your claims about Tyre, and you were shown to be grotesquely uninformed. You willing to have another go?

I did present an argument. You said you never heard of it and dismissed it out of hand saying that "When readings are promoted only by amateurs and never by scholars, it is usually for a reason."

My argument is still there. Like I said, have at it. And I'm not grossly uninformed about Tyre, I merely mislabeled a picture. You obviously didn't read the article I posted. Are those scholars "grossly misinformed" too?

[_grindael]

Grindael, in becoming a modern Trinitarian Christian, would you agree you've simply exchanged one body of mythology for another? If not, why?

This has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to start a new one go right ahead. If I have time, perhaps I'll respond.

[_maklelan]

No, it goes to your whole arrogant attitude. You had the same attitude then. History has a funny way of repeating itself.

Yes, my arrogant attitude was why I admitted I was wrong because I hadn't studied the issue very much. It's a shame you can't actually prove I'm wrong this time around. Just insisting that I am still an arrogant bastard doesn't mean I'm wrong again.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Grindael, in becoming a modern Trinitarian Christian, would you agree you've simply exchanged one body of mythology for another? If not, why?

This has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to start a new one go right ahead. If I have time, perhaps I'll respond.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with this thread in that it deals with the falsity verses/reality of certain prophets and their respective faiths.

[_grindael]

So show me that Jesus (as portrayed in the gospels, to be clear) wasn't wrong.

I did, but you arrogantly refuse to acknowledge the argument.

[_maklelan]

I did present an argument.

And I responded to it. You didn't respond to my comments.

You said you never heard of it and dismissed it out of hand saying that "When readings are promoted only by amateurs and never by scholars, it is usually for a reason."

My argument is still there. Like I said, have at it.

I've already responded in full to your exegesis. That you found a scholar who promotes it in a Bible commentary doesn't suddenly make my argument go away.

And I'm not grossly uninformed about Tyre, I merely mislabeled a picture.

No, the fact that the ruins there are from the Roman era entirely undermine your whole case. You are basing the notion that Ezekiel's prophecy was fulfilled on the grounds that those ruins indicate the city was never rebuilt. The fact that they date to the Roman period flatly precludes your case. If you sincerely believe that all I did was show you mislabeled a single picture then you're far more uninformed than I thought.

You obviously didn't read the article I posted.

The one that quotes Carson? I read every word.

Are those scholars "grossly misinformed" too?

Yes.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

So show me that Jesus (as portrayed in the gospels, to be clear) wasn't wrong.

I did, but you arrogantly refuse to acknowledge the argument.

You learned that trick from Subgenius, didn't you?

[_maklelan]

I did, but you arrogantly refuse to acknowledge the argument.

That's a lie. I directly engaged your exegesis. Trying to pawn the argument off on Carson doesn't suddenly make that go away.

[_grindael]

No, it goes to your whole arrogant attitude. You had the same attitude then. History has a funny way of repeating itself.

Yes, my arrogant attitude was why I admitted I was wrong because I hadn't studied the issue very much. It's a shame you can't actually prove I'm wrong this time around. Just insisting that I am still an arrogant bastard doesn't mean I'm wrong again.

No need to swear. Are you upset? And your statement about amateurs and scholars was extremely arrogant. Why won't you address my explanation of Matthew 24 then? Because you are a lofty "scholar" and I'm just an amateur according to you. You have proven nothing. You have simply made generic statements about what you think "Fundamentalists" believe. That argument though, is just a diversion. If you weren't so arrogant, you would respond to my explanation of Jesus words in Matthew 24. Why don't you, Daniel?