This thread is made to discuss the research I have presented.
Yes, and my position is that it does not deserve discussion because of what scripture plainly states when it is read exactly as written, AND when the op is read it is objectively observable a great plethora of eisegetic liberties have been taken with scripture to make it say things it cannot exegetically or logically be made to say if the texts are read as written and exegetically examined.
Others may take up the nonsense but that "discussion" would also be nonsense.
Post 16 might not be considered worth a response but in that case, silence would be the best.
If the goal is to "discuss" the "research" then it should
Not other viewpoints that do NOT meet the Ezra 6:14 Challenge.
My viewpoint does meet the Ezra 6:14 and I have demonstrated the op does not. By your own standard the op should not be discussed!
You can make another thread to discuss your view.
That kind of response is always a cop out. I and everyone and anyone can make another thread, everyone knows that, and no one needs to be told that. It's not only hugely non sequitur; it's another abject failure to address the facts in evidence of Post #16.
For now I am here telling anyone else who bothers to read my posts there is a more veracious way to read the relevant texts, one exegetically better, more logical, and a manner that bears much better consistency with the whole of scripture, and I am quite content to have everyone see the refusal to discuss the problems in the op and a better alternative even as I hoped for more.
Let's be clear here. It looks like the purpose of the op is to impose its position(s) on others, not discuss it. Not only was this thread established with TWELVE ops, but there's also not one single point of inquiry or comment specified for discussion beyond the tile of the thread. A desire and intent to "discuss" was made but the facts in evidence not only disprove that desire, but a series of fallacies have been deployed to justify the avoidance. The first response was...
I've presented hours of research...........
Who cares? 100 hours, 1000 hours, one gazillion hours of research is not proof of truth. It is not proof of anything! It is, logically speaking, a fallacious argument. It's a false cause argument: because hours of research have been done this op is correct. No, hours of research do not prove ANYTHING and if the op contains the same kind of reasoning as the defense then the op too is fallacious.
And that clause is a straw man. It misrepresents the opposing view and then argues against the misrepresentation. I wasn't arguing. I was discussing. It's also hypocrisy because strawmen are arguing, not discussion.
...which you state which have been shown to incorrect.
And the substance of which has been ignored in favor of a false cause, straw man, and hypocrisy.
So, how does your view pass the Ezra 6:14 Challenge?
This is particularly humorous, even though I suspect it was not intended to be humorous. It's humorous because if hours of research have been done then you know and you know instantly, that Post 16 does meet the Ezra 6;14 test and the question needn't be asked! Not only does the question not have to be asked but Post 16 should instantly and unequivocally affirmed as commendably passing the test!
But that's not the posted response, is it? In other words, the opportunity NOT to argue availed itself but instead of starting with agreement and agreement measured by terms you set.... a choice not do so was deliberately made.
That is arguing. It is not discussion.
If it can't, then it is not correct.
And that is irony because Post 16 does pass the test and Post 1 does not.
We could be discussing that but we're not. YOU could be learning more research from those God saw fit to bring to this thread (either in thesis or antithesis) but you're not. YOU could be refining your case but fallacy ensued instead.
You can Post an op. I can, too.
@TATII,
@EarlyActs, and whoever else shows up can do the same. You can post this op AND, having done so, the op is all yours to discuss. It is yours to assert, yours to defend, yours to clarify as needed, yours to amend if the discussions warrant. The op is also yours to recant should the various discussion prove that necessary.
That is called discussion. What is not your to do is decide who gets to post what in reply to the op. There are currently only three who've replied but in the due course of time more will come and a diversity of replies will follow. You will either be able to address every concern every poster brings to bear on this op or you will not. The areas where you prove unable are indications either more study is needed or the op is fatally flawed and only those conversations will prove which is the case. Those who already share the position asserted in this twelve-post op are not likely to add much. Those "conversations" tend to be self-affirming unless they fill out the case and prove it flawless. If all you want to do is trade posts this with ONLY those who ONLY agree then say so, and do not call that a discussion.
Lastly, you and I are going to continue to have problems until my posts are either ignored or engaged with cogent discourse and not adversarial fallacy. We have different positions (at least when it comes to eschatology) but that does not mean we cannot discuss the differences kindly. If that happens then it is likely, given the facts already in evidence, that you will have to learn from someone with whom you don't like trading posts. That could be a good thing. I do not require anyone to believe as I believe but I do expect them to make a case for their positions between than this op does.
So go back to Post 16 and read it as if you actually want to discuss
this op. Do it because the points in Post 16 are valid. The criteria stated in the Daniel text pertaining to the 70 weeks have been met. Lots of people disagree, but it is invariably their doctrine that drives the disagreement, not the text of Daniel 9. There's only one place Daniel is explicitly mentioned in the New Testament and that text provides criteria that also, again, informs us the 70 weeks have already occurred - if the text is read exactly as written. And, yes, Post 16 does pass the "
Ezra 6:14 challenge" (even if I think "challenges" based on a proof-texting of scripture something to be avoided).
