Christianity is inconsistent.

The first line in Con's last post said, "Judaism replaced Christianity at Jesus's death." I'm almost positive Con meant to say, "Christianity replaced Judaism at Jesus' death." I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt on that. FIRST ARGUMENT Recall the initial syllogism I gave in my first argument. It goes like this: 1. If Christianity is true, then Judaism prior to and up to the instigation of Christianity was true. 2. If Judaism prior to and up to the instigation of Christianity true, then Christianity is false. 3. Therefore, if Christianity is true, then Christianity is false. In his response, he said, "Before Jesus, Judaism was true. After Jesus, Christianity is true." This is as much as an affirmation of my first premise. The only difference is the transition period Pro said existed during Jesus' pre-resurrection life, which is not really important to my argument. If what Con says is true, then after Jesus, Christianity was true, and before Jesus, Judaism was true. So my first premise is true. That brings us to the second premise. How did Con respond to the second premise? Well, he appears to affirm the second premise as well. He admits that according to Judaism, sacrifices will never end. We are talking about Judaism prior to Jesus here because these passages about never-ending sacrifices come from the Old Testament which predates Christianity. After admitting that sacrifices will never end according to Judaism, Con then goes on to say that Jesus made sacrifices obsolete. That is according to Christian theology. If sacrifices have become obsolete, then it could not have been true that sacrifices were going to go on forever. And if it's true that sacrifices should go on forever, then it can't be true that Jesus made sacrifices obsolete. So Con has not resolved the contradiction. Rather, Con has pretty much just admitted that the contradiction is there. Can has proved my case. Christianity presupposes the truth of Judaism, Judaism says sacrifices will never end, and Christianity says sacrifices have become obsolete. Therein lies the inconsistency of Christianity. SECOND ARGUMENT In my original second argument, I quoted both Job 7:7-10 and Ecclesiastes 9:3-6 which both showed that there is no resurrection. In his recent response, Con focused on the part of the Job passage that said, "He will not return again to his house." But that is not the relevant part. The relevant part is the part that says, "he who goes down to Sheol does not come up." Con ignored that part, so he has not given an adequate refutation of my argument from Job. Likewise, Con gives an inadequate response to my argument from Ecclesiastes. He's right to say Ecclesiastes 9:6 refers to earthly matters. In fact it explicitly says the dead will have no share in anything that happens UNDER THE SUN, which is a clear reference to earth. But that is precisely why I spent time in the last round explaining that resurrection is something that happens on earth, i.e. under the sun. Con ignored the arguments I made in the last round showing that resurrection is an earthly event. So again, Con's response is inadequate. Not only does the resurrection occur on earth, but those who are resurrected remain on earth. The New Testament speaks of a second coming of Christ, and I even quoted a passage in 1 Thessalonians showing that Jesus returns to earth. But there is no passage in the New Testament that says there will be a second ascension. Jesus does not leave earth a second time. Moreover, in Revelation 21:2-3, it says, "And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them." It's pretty clear. New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven. It comes down to the earth. As a result, God dwells with men. That means God and men are on earth. Why would a city comes down to earth if nobody was ever going to live in it? But they do! In verse 27, it says those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life will live in the City. There are many other passages showing that those who are resurrected will spend eternity on a new earth. Jesus said the gentle (or meek, depending on your translation) will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5). Isaiah 60:21 says that God's people will possess the land forever. I could go on. CONCLUSION Con still hasn't refuted my arguments.