Yeah, random. Half of them don't even support your criticism of my argument about the incoherence of Christendom. The quote about how the gospel is a stumbling block to many is a countercultural prediction that mass Christianity would be impossible. Alas, it came to pass, and Rome absorbed the counterculture. When Jesus supposedly said to render to Caesar what's his, I don't think he meant to give up the counterculture's spiritual vision itself. But that’s what organized Christianity became.

Likewise, the quote about how Christians should be suffering in this life is countercultural, which means it supports my article's objection about the conflict between that counterculture and the prospects of an organized religion. How many Christians presently suffer for their religious convictions? Isn't their religion accepted in most countries because it's been so badly compromised and secularized over many centuries?

You can say that the secularized, liberal Christians aren't real Christians, but that's the No true Scotsman fallacy. The historical fact is that Christianity is no longer an oppressed counterculture, regardless of how conservatives on Fox News want to pretend they're being persecuted for their righteousness. Christianity became an organized religion for the masses. It happened under the auspices of the Roman Empire, and various other kingdoms and empires followed suit, co-opting Jesus's outsider vision of how things should be. True, there are Christian cults here and there which stand up to mass cultures. But Christianity itself became something that includes the watered-down forms of Christian belief and practice.

Also, my argument is about the likely message of the historical Jesus, so the quotes from Paul are irrelevant. Evidently he had his own ideas which weren't based on knowledge of an historical Jesus. Ditto for Revelation.

So the problem here isn't that I haven't backed up my argument. Rather, it's that you haven't addressed my argument with a criticism. Again, my criticism here isn't that the Bible can't be used to understand everything that happens (in an empty, superficial, unfalsifiable way). Rather, it's that what actually happened to Christianity is bad. The organized, mass form of a counterculture makes for an incoherent mess. That's Christianity's existential, structural problem. And all you did is point to some Bible verses that vaguely predict Christians would fail in various ways. So you're only conceding my point. Why would I need to back up my point further, when you're doing so for me?