Christianity Concluded

Con's last sentence was cut off, you can read it in the last debate's comments section if you really care. Through my opponent's veil of poor structure, we have been contending three issues, which seems a better structure than having to deal with eight. 1. ORIGINALITY "[Astral Gods] bearing the same 12 Signs as Jesus did Disciples. The same Resurrection of the Sun." First, let me demonstrate the point that these so-called "Astral religions" you name (I would dispute that title, but anyway) are diverse because Greek/Roman religion doesn't have a sun resurrection. The "signs" in the different religions represent very different things (ie 12 Olympians vs Zodiac). Just because the number 12 appears in different religions doesn't really mean anything. Neither did the disciples represent anything to the early Christians. It's like me claiming Christianity was plagiarized from Greek because a portion of the New Testament was written in Greek. As to the Sun resurrection, that vocal similarity to "son" doesn't exist in Egyptian. Resurrection of the Sun, by the way, happened daily in Egypt. Resurrection of God happened once in Christianity. "[Krishna's] CRUCIFIXION AND BIRTHDAY" Actually I am rather versed in Hindu myth, my uncle is a Hindu. Krishna was shot and killed by a hunter (http://www.bvml.org......). This is a very different manner of death to crucifixion. The birthday thing I have already dealt with last round. "MULTIPLE SOURCES of reference compared to ONE SOURCE of reference [of Horus]." Well, OK, if you're not using the book of the dead as your source, what are you using? It's the only work cited in your only source (which compares rather favorably to my three). It also refers to "The Pagan Christ; Recovering the Lost Light," but that book also only cites the book of the dead. Do your own research, I think you'll find the temple walls agree with the book. "You can not by any means rearrange the doctrine of someone else to fit your needs." It's not a rearrangement, it's the original text. The Tanakh is the Old Testament. 2. LEGITIMACY "Christianity has the same guidelines as agnosticism or atheism" Your source, whatever it is, must be counting China as 100% atheist or non-religious. There's no other way you can arrive at your figures. If so (which it is), then this statement is a lie. "You say you've shown the reliability of the bible which is something no man has done in its 2000 year history." Woo hoo! I'm the first! But I do think many wise men have claimed the bible is correct and reliable before me (Damn! I thought I could make history). Everyone from St Augustine to the present Pope has made the claim. What you mean to say is "no skeptic has done...", I think, but that's a statistical fault because all those that have claimed the inerrancy of the bible are called Christians, not skeptics, no matter how hard they try to convince. "[Jewish] writing is different from the Septuagint translation." and also "What proof do you have of the Jewish view?" That depends on which version of the Septuagint you use. I guess for the ultimate in checking which of us has more reliable Jewish friends, one could go back to the dead sea scrolls. Most modern bibles use the dead sea scrolls when the bible and tanekh are in conflict, unless there is a very good textual reason to doubt them (which, very rarely, does happen). While I do not claim to be able to prove every Jewish rabbi will agree with every prophecy, in general all those I have ever spoken to acknowledge the prophecies but deny their fulfillment. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org......) states that Isiah 2:4, Isaiah 9:5, Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 53:5, Zechariah 12:10, Zechariah 9:9, Micah 5:2, Haggai 2:6-9 and Ezekiel 37:26-27 are all prophecies generally agreed on by both Christians and Jews. "[Contradictions like] John not mentioning the virgin birth, or 4 different accounts of the resurrection." This is a major topic that you probably should have brought up earlier. Suffice to say that John mentioning the virgin birth means that John assumed people already knew about it, or perhaps that he had insufficient evidence of it. The four accounts of the resurrection actually agree on many details, but the difference can be ascribed to different witnesses saying different things, and the authors attempting to fill in the blanks. We can still claim that he was resurrected even when the details are unclear. 3. PROPHECY "What right does man, follower of Jesus or not, have to declare something prophecy?" Every right. Just as the judiciary declares certain documents contracts every day, we can judge certain documents to the prophecy every day. What's the difference? "If you read the verses in whole, you will see not only that they predict nothing, but also that they're directed at a set of people with no correlation to Jesus." Both of these claims are your subjective opinion. I repeat - your subjective opinion combined with a subjective belief of a writer does not make an objective opinion. "How is this a prediction of a messiah: God telling Adam what is to come as a result of them knowing the truth and being capable of death and offspring..." He said man will strike down the serpent. Serpent is Satan. Son of man does in fact come in human form to defeat Satan. That makes a prophecy in the eyes of many. Jesus fulfilled said prophecy. "How is Isaiah 52:1 any less clear than say Isaiah 53?" Isaiah 53 clearly refers to the first coming as it deals with the messiah's death. For a better discussion of this complex theological issue see here: http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org...... and http://en.wikipedia.org...... "According to the superscription, this psalm is 'For the Chief Musician; set to Shoshannim.' [and is thus not from God's perspective]" Your conclusion does not follow. Churches sing hymns from God's perspective all the time - gives me horrible nightmares of being forced to sing "Here I am Lord" for all eternity. 4. CONCLUSION My opponent's case has so far been all over the place. In every single round he has been using different arguments from the ones he was using previously. He has barely touched my case at all, preferring to talk about the legitimacy of my sources and begin wholly new contentions without ever backing his old ones up. That won't win him the debate. I've given you cogent and consistent analysis from both Biblical and extra-biblical sources to show the originality and prophetic nature of Christianity. I've also shown that a legitimate case can be constructed for Christianity. Thus I have fulfilled all my roles, and should win this debate. Can you make it happen?