WHEN BUZ QUITS THE THREAD

Paul, you're doing here exactly what Percy falsly accused me of without specification, of doing on a regular basis. You're repeating what I have already addressed as if I had been soundly refuted when indeed I was not. I explained that this, being in the same chapters in all three gospels and which was prophesied to the same people on the same occasion is considered by many as inclusive in the Olivet Discourse prophecy. All three gospels have it at the beginning and imply that after viewing and addressing the Temple the group walk up to the Mount of Olives.

I'm taking each post in the order of the post and need to attend to business now. I'll continue responding when I can find time. Thanks ahead for your patience.

All of them say that the Olivet Disocurse is ABOUT the destruction of the Temple. None of them put it at the start of the events.You have NEVER refuted this. You HAVE run away from it. You HAVE pretended that I said something else instead of addressing it. The proof is in this thread.So drop the false accusations, stop telling lies and actually deal with the facts.

	​ Like Nitpick, Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When faced with an attack he can't rebuff he maneuvers the discussion into an area where he feels he occupies the high ground. If, for example, in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him as a "sonofabitch", Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for his sainted mother, but will launch into a long harrangue about the sanctity of motherhood. Knowing full well that to stay on topic will assure his defeat, he is utterly impervious to counterattacks like, "that has nothing to do with this discussion".

It is very often difficult to find the key point of disagreement between two antagonists from posts in mid-debate, so I went back to the very beginning in Prophecy Revisited: Israel's Destiny?. As near as I can tell, Buzz claimed that the Olivet Discourse as represented in Luke 21 is a prophecy of the Jews return to Israel. Paul disputes this interpretation. Here's my analysis:No matter whether you interpret Luke 21:25-28 as prophecy of events before or after the destruction of the temple, when I read the Olivet Discourse it appears it cannot be about events beyond the 1st century AD, for Jesus says in Luke 21:32, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."But who is correct doesn't even matter, because Buzz *did* leave the discussion hanging, and after saying a couple fairly antagonistic things, like "You're outa your field here, my friend." After I'd responded (fairly politely, in PaulK's case) to someone who'd said that to me, I'd kinda expect that common courtesy and decency entitled me to a response, and I would be pretty unhappy when the thread was abandoned.This kind of reaction is only human, Buzz, and even though I know you think of us as subhuman atheists^*, many of us actually possess some very human qualities.--Percy^* Just so no newcomers are misled, while there *are* many atheists here, I'm a deist myself.

is anyone surprised by this ? you ask Bud a difficult question and he vanishes. I tried questioning him on the adam and eve thread - he's a dodger pure and simple.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-06-2004 11:48 AM

Just to be clear, the "generation" argument is the one Buz has been disputing - instead of answering the point about the Temple.Here's Luke's intro to the Olivet Discourse

quote:

---

5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said,
6 "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down."
7 They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?"

---

It is perfectly clear that the Disciples are asking about when the Temple will be destroyed, and the Discourse proper is the answer to that question. Even in Luke there is no explicit mention of the destruction of the Temple - Mark 13 and Matthew 24 have no siege or exile. Even worse for Buzsaw, the "wars and rumours of wars" and the "earthquakes in diverse places" are all before the siege of Jerusalem. And that event is the only text that could be identified as possibly referring to the destruction of the Temple itself(and of course Mark's and Matthew's versions do not even allow this get-out). Clearly the wars and earthquakes must fit into less than 40 years unless the siege itself is pushed into the future - but to do that removes any reference to the ostensible subject of the Discourse.It gets even worse for Buz when Mark 13 and Matthew 24 are considered.

Who said anything about opinion? Why do you refuse to address the issue I raised in my post?We're not talking about your opinions. We're talking about you promulgating untruths and refusing to correct yourself when your error is shown. I've been repeatedly specific in showing you that the supernatural is not falsifiable, whereas evolution is; you haven't replied to those posts of mine yet so perhaps it's sunk in. I doubt it, though. Time will tell if we see "evolution and the supernatural are falsifiable to the same degree" out of your mouth in another thread. This very thread documents it. By your own hand you've crafted all the documentation we'll ever need, in this thread. But the difference between you and I is, when someone shows me the evidence that what I said was stupid and wrong, I correct myself.As evidence: In one of my first few posts, I asserted that no bird could both swim and fly with equal proficiency. I was thinking of how ducks can fly well but are ungainly swimmers.Birds were shown to me that swam like penguins and flew like eagles. I was wrong; stupidly so.I have not ever repeated this claim.

Fair enough. But what if s/he studies evolution, and thinks the facts point to creation? Why must they point to evolution Schraff? This is favouring evolution. If you look for evidence of evolution, you'll find it. Now look for evidence of creation, and I bet you'd find that also. No probs. Now do me a favour - get an avatar. Eat baba lung.

I wonder if you and Buzz have the same portion of the Olivet Discourse in mind. I know I was confused while trying to figure out which portions each of you were referring to. Maybe you guys both know what portions the other is talking about, but maybe not.--Percy

Schraf was just providing an obvious example of a more general principle. Her example was of a Creationist who accepts all the facts related to evolution, but chooses to believe in the Genesis account anyway, and she said she would be fine with that. I feel the same way. I grant Creationists the right to any religious beliefs they wish, but they can't pick and choose among the facts they'll accept. This is often expressed more pithily as, "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."As Schraf went on to say in the portion you didn't quote, "...but that's not what buzsaw is doing. He is making false factual claims, and I am addressing and correcting those factual claims on a debate forum. Remember that this is a forum for debate."As he has done so many times before, Buzz has made a false statement, and now is going to incredible lengths to divert discussion onto other topics. This thread is a prime example of the very behavior Buzz denies. Buzz *wants* to be raked over the coals by his opponents (no other conclusion is possible), because in that way he avoids the impossible task of defending an incorrect statement, and he appears unfairly beset upon by a mob. And as far as you're concerned, it appears to be working.Perhaps you'd like to try to defend the statement that Buzz can't or won't: Evolution is no more disprovable than the supernatural.--Percy Fix typos. --PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 09-06-2004 06:12 PM

1. This certain day, he was in the temple and as he left to go to the Mount of Olives, the desciples begin a discussion about the temple as to it's beauty, etc. In all three synoptic gospels he begins to prophesy to them about the future, first while they were at the temple, about the destruction of the temple and after they arrived at the Mount of Olives, about the events which would lead up to the end of the world and his second advent to earth. The Greek uses the word aionos here which has been translated world in most translations but refers to age rather than the planet which is kosmos.
2. All of the prophecies about future events were spoken on the Mt. of Olives except the temple destruction. Thus since most were at the Mt of Olives the prophecies covered became know as the Olivet Discourse.
3. In all three accounts, Jesus's prophecy includes the temple destruction but is not limited to the temple. THE EVENTS IN THE PROPHECY ACCORDING TO THE WORDING IN THE CONTEXT APPEAR TO BE GENERALLY CONSECTUTIVE WHICH PUTS THE TEMPLE DESTRUCTION FIRST. Please note how frequent either the word after and the phrase and thenoccur. He never specifies just when the temple destruction will come, but he does specify things that occur before his 2nd advent to earth and the age end time, including the preaching of his gospel worldwide, the darkening of sun and moon, his appearing in the clouds and people caught up to him, shaking of the heavens, dispersion of Jews and occupation of gentile nations, end of gentile occupation of Jerusalem and so forth.
4. Degreed professional theologians pretty much all agree that this all is considered to be the Olivet Discourse. I've never ever heard of one who limits it to the temple destruction.
5. In all three of the gospels the first thing mentioned in the prophecy by Jesus is the temple destruction. Most of the major events prophesied to happen could not possibly have happened before the temple was destroyed in about 70 AD.As I remember the first time in this thread you brought this up, you simply said something like, "Olivet Discourse," in response to my call for documentation. I've got to dig up precisely what I wanted documented but will go ahead and post this so's not to loose it and edit that in.I checked it out and it appears your two word post was a general response to my op and I got the message you were conveying loud and clear which I then responded to. I mistakenly assumed that by "Olivet Discourse" you were referring to the entire discourse. I do remember that in a former debate with you about this, the debate included the whole thing.OK, now it just occured to me that when you said the Discourse was "ABOUT" the temple you were not necessarily limiting the discourse to the temple, but were aluding to your notion that it is not first in the sequence of events. Since that is likely the case I have edited out part of this original post.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-06-2004 11:31 PM

Yes, and I agree with you on that, Holmes, but check out the length I go to in a number of debates, some which go for many pages and see if I cut and run easily to the point that I should be charged with being this notorious quitter. Often it takes a while for me to get back for response, but seldom have I not responded to things of consequence before moving on. I say seldom because I cannot recall everything, but surely my record is not so much worse than the average that I should be singled out and labeled with this charge by my meanspirited accusers to the point that I have been and severely rebuked by the king of EvC.

My acknowledgement and addressing of the criticism which spawned the thread are in my op. Why can't you and Schraf stop the generalized insolence about my conduct and work with the content of my op by pasting each item and documenting specific discrepancies on my part concerning each. Then if you can show exactly where the charges are bonafide we can address them and talk constructively. You are both meanspiritedly off topic, violating your own guidelines, imo. OK, I'll agree that the spirit or intent of the guidelines are important, but now and then, we all come short of that, but imo, but the charges that spawned this thread, if documented to be true would be direct letter violations, would they not? I gave my own personal reasons which admittedly are solely logical and cited the link which is from a more scientific perspective, especially the first paragraph, which I believe lays out a pretty good argument for a position counter to the majority view. . Why don't you cite some hot threads which have been driven by obfucative conduct on my part and we'll talk about them. I wouldn't advise you to begin with the Exodus threads where ship valves were cited in debate about the chariot wheels and rocks totally outa area context were used as arguments about the Aqaba area repeatedly which we were obliged to answer. Narry a peep was piped from admin about this conduct on the part of our counterparts. Well, that's why I did the thread. I'm charged with doing it a lot with much panache but I think my accusers go at me when things aren't going well for them in debate. It's off topic to do this and being not schooled in this, all I can provide is what I can dig up from others more schooled than I. My logic won't cut it with you and you deny my link to be relavent, so I say why not forget it and stick with the topic?

I had the whole discourse in mind and assumed Paul did also by his first post aluding to simply, [i]Olivet Discourse.[/qs]