That's why I tend to think of theology as a house of cards. You can build very elaborate theological structures based on sophisticated philosophical argumentation and reasoning, but as soon as you add in the stipulation of evidence and confirmation with the external world the entire edifice collapses in on itself.

Well, Trevor, I'd be happy to discuss any of these with you. You should note, however, that the Psalms are not prophecies - they are poetry. The fact that the gospel writers may have drawn upon some of the Psalms for some narrative details and imagery doesn't make them fulfilled prophecies. That takes care of a large portion of your list.

Who said anything about lying? What were the motives of the followers of the cult of Dionysus for making up his death and resurrection? What were the motives of the admirers of Caesar Augustus for claiming that he was born of a virgin? All religions face various amounts of persecution. Does that make them all true? Joseph Smith was persecuted and his Mormon followers were chased all the way to Utah. Why didn't his disciples come out and tell the truth? Besides, how would we know if any early followers of Jesus came out and told the 'truth'? Virtually all dissenting documents from that period were destroyed. The easiest way to do away with a book in the ancient world was simply to stop copying it.

At the same time, those teachings that you attribute to Jesus were hardly original to him! Jesus was not the first to make use of the golden rule. In fact, I would love to which moral teachings, if any, were actually original to Jesus.

Resurrection: It may seem like the most heinous crime against humanity ever in retrospect but you would have to fault his followers for foolishly perpetuating it, not Jesus. Then again, cults of rising and dying godmen were prevalent in the Greek and Roman worlds of the time. Anyway - you are speaking of an enormously large IF.

It is not enough to just believe and sign your name and take it to the bank. The million dollars has to actually exist!

Always question, never just believe.

Perhaps. But love isn't the creator of the universe or control the destiny of man.

You do keep trying - I give you that much.

Acts 8:33. Both the KJV and the NRSV read "his generation" which doesn't really give you the meaning that you want. The NIV does read "his descendants" but even here I think you are incorrect in inferring that genea means a long list of generations. Where the NIV asks "Who can speak of his descendants?" the contemporary English version asks "How can he have children?" My understanding is that these other versions are using the first meaning given by Strong's lexicon: "fathered, birth, nativity." The passage seems to be asking how this person could farther or give birth to the next generation, for his own posterity, if he is dead. Genea therefore refers to the originating of descendants, not the line of descendants itself, if we follow Strong's. So you still do not get your meaning.

Acts 14:16. The NRSV translates this as "generations" (In past generations) while the KJV translates this as "times" (in times past). The use of the plural here should be significant but you summarily ignore it, as you have before. Genea is not a single large span of time, rather the single large span of time is made up of multiple geneas (plural) or periods of time.

I am not a Greek scholar, of course, but I wanted to try and confirm if Acts 8:33 is using genea in the singular and if Acts 14:16 is using genea in the plural. Indeed, this is the case, as greekbible.com confirms for me. Acts 8:33 uses the singular γενεὰν while Acts 14:16 uses the plural form γενεαῖς. The only reason that it shows a period of time far greater than a single human generation is because it is referring to multiple geneas, not a single genea!

The same remarks can be made concerning your last two citations. The NRSV translates Ephesians 3:5 as "In former generations..." and Colossians 1:26 as "throughout the ages and generations."

Face it - here you are clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Nope. Completely disagree. Still. One of us is playing with the words and each thinks that it is the other. My terrible explanation seems reasonable. Your explanation is that they are defining a generation as several or a collection of generations! Baloney.

What you don't get is that the third 'aspect' is not simply a repetition of the first, as you seem to indicate in your last paragraph. It is a more narrow definition that is limited to individuals who are related through biological descent. The use of the plural simply indicates that there is a very specific relationship between each successive 'generation' according to this meaning. That's it.

I did read all of the definitions very carefully before commenting and none of this alters my conclusion in any way. What are the *several* ranks of natural descent? Precisely the *several* that I listed. The successive members of a genealogy are each one generation. Put them together and in succession and viola, you have a genealogy. The genealogy is not the generation. All this is saying is that a generation is the unit of measurement that makes up the successive links in a genealogy.