Raf

Ok, so, looking at the calendar I have access to (and with gratitude for your corrections) 28 AD: Nisan 14 falls on a Wednesday. Jesus is 31 by TWI's reckoning. This actually lines up fairly well for them. He's actually too YOUNG, though. If he gets baptized when he's 30, then that's Sept. of 28, five months AFTER that passover. Did Jesus not have to wait until he was 30 because an old piece of literature says he didn't have to? There's another problem. Luke 3 says Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius. We know when that is. That's 29 AD. Jesus is 30 if baptized before his birthday, 31 if after. So if that's when he's baptized, a ministry of less than one year mandates we're looking at 30 AD. Preparation day, Nisan 14, is on a ... oops... Friday. 31 AD and 34 AD: Again, Jesus is too old. We would have to assume some flexibility with the Bible's "about 30 years" statement, but I find it hard to reconcile Jesus following every aspect of the law down to the letter but being squishy about when he gets baptized. Wiggle room is what you need when you're making up a story, not when you're just telling what happened. Give Luke (whoever the actual author was) some credit here: He tells you dates you can check. Not that his dates check out (cough, Quirinius, cough), but at least he gives you something to work with. There are other challenges, but if Luke is correct about the baptism and John is correct about Jesus dying on the preparation day, then Jesus died on a Friday, April 7, 30 AD.

That would make Jesus too old. It also raises a ton of questions. Maybe I moved this thread too soon? lol

TLC, you don't have to answer that. Rocky, don't think you meant it this way, but your post could be viewed as an attempt to disclose a poster's ID or threaten to do so. That's a no-no. TLC may disclose whatever he (or she: don't know/remember) wants to about who he is or who he knows. He may also decline to answer.

6!

Imagine if math worked the way "believers" say faith in the resurrection works. 2+2=4, but you need spiritual insight from the very notion you're trying to prove in order to see it. I can't just show it to you by laying out the evidence because that would give you an unfair advantage over people who can't count. Holy sh*t. Lawrence Krauss was criticized once for wearing a shirt that said 2+2=5. See, "faith" in math could reasonably lead you to that conclusion. You laugh, but ... When you round numbers, it's easy to see. 2.499 (which rounds down to 2) + 2.499 (which rounds down to 2) = 4.998, which rounds to 5. Math is fun and funny that way. Why do I bring it up? Because if I'm going to expect you to believe something absurd, I'm going to respect your intelligence enough to explain it to you in terms that can't be disputed. I'm going to give you the evidence, ESPECIALLY IF YOUR ETERNAL DESTINY IS AT STAKE!!! Krauss DID wear a shirt that said 2+2=5. It also said "for large enough values of 2," but his critics like to leave that part out. TLC wants people to think I left out his context, when his context consists entirely of accepting, as evidence, sh*t no one can prove. You need to be open to the holy spirit to accept the resurrection. Well, no sh*t. That's the point, isn't it. The evidence won't lead you there, but if you'll just open your mind to "not evidence," you'll see it clearly. DUH! EVERY. RELIGION. MAKES. THE. SAME. CASE. It's circular reasoning. You have to assume that which you are trying to prove in order to prove that which you are assuming. That's not evidence. That's abandoning your mental faculties, which religion PRAISES at the expense of intelligence, which is indicated by words like "so-called" intellectuals or by putting words like "intellectuals" in quotes to denigrate them [by implying they are not open to the things of the spirit]. Honestly, if I were an intelligent Christian, I would be insulted at the insinuation. You were not taken out of context, TLC. Your argument was rebutted and refuted. Now stop lying about me. Engage my arguments, if you have a counterargument. "You have to take it on faith" is not a counterargument. It's an admission the facts, evidence and truth are not on your side.

No prob. My personal belief is the gospel writers disagreed with each other on what happened. Why? off topic. enjoy

By the way, the notion that God didn't want to give intelligent people an advantage [holy sh*t, how are you not insulted by this] is not Biblical. Someone's making up that phony argument because he knows the actual evidence doesn't support his position.

Fried Green Tomatoes Green Lantern How Green Was My Valley The Green Mile

"Furthermore, you do realize that I never said that God deliberately made it harder for smart people to be saved, don't you? What I said or alluded to, was that He didn't make it easier for them." Well then, He's an idiot who clearly would NOT have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. See, when I want people to know something, like, say, the earth is spherical and not a disc covered by a dome, I gather the evidence and present it. I don't conjure up a fairy tale about people who live on a disc covered by a dome and leave you to figure out 5,000 years later that it was figurative even though the people who wrote it believed it was literal.

He's just upset because he equates his ignorance with other people's education and thinks both are entitled to equal respect. I made my point exceedingly clear: the manufacturers of Yahweh attack intelligence because they know it is a threat to their con. It's an insult to the faithful, like referring to "intellectuals" in quotes but not actually rebutting their educated analysis of the evidence with anything other than the already discredited claims of ancient forgers of phony documents you expect us to believe are God-breathed even though their authors lack the basic integrity to sign their own names instead of Paul's. Double-checking the grammar and...

Psst You can call it applebutter if you want to. It's still bullsh*t. You've still yet to address any actual issues. Just falsely accuse me of misrepresenting you when I quote your actual words. Note: when someone praises you for not listening to intelligent people (1 Cor. 13:19), it's not a compliment.

The best you'll see is claims that refer back to the gospels, none of which are written by eyewitnesses or authors willing to put their names on the documents

Your bullsh*t smells like what bullsh*t would smell like if bullsh*t could sh*t.

8!

I gotta admit I don't see him fitting that definition of trolling anyway. Trolls sow discord for their amusement. They don't do it because they're afraid independent minds will examine the evidence and come to a conclusion that troubles them. It's a motive thing, I think.

We're not supposed to use the T word. Besides, I find describing the behavior more effective than labeling it.

9!

I think i'm not being clear. This is a subforum of Doctrinal that expects an exploration of unbelief. An atheist corner, if you will. Doctrinal seems to be the place where you want this thread, not questioning faith. We will move it if that's ok with you

Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice). Why would God deliberately make it harder for smart people to be saved? Why does God favor the gullible, I mean those with lesser mental acumen, I mean the stupid, I mean the faithful? Why put a stumblingblock in front of the intelligent that does not exist for those with lesser mental acumen? Doesn't THAT make him a respector of persons? I think there's a reason "God" has no use for smart people. He's a fictional character created by conmen who rightfully recognize intelligent people as a threat to their con.

He acts like that's the only time he called believers stupid. He actually said if God had provided adequate evidence, it would show "respect of persons," i.e., favoritism for intelligent people. I am not taking you out of context, TLC, and I'm starting to resent your falsewitness. You wanna dig up the quotes and deny you said exactly what you said? You don't value evidence, you don't value education, you don't have an argument to back up your position, so all you can do is bad-mouth the people who DO have the intelligence and the facts to support theirs. Try a single post that actually addresses the points being made on this thread without attacking the spirituality (or lack thereof) of those who are demonstrating your position is full of dung. If you can't do that, you're not really involved in this discussion. You're just trying to derail it because you can't handle where it's headed.

I'm going to start referring to people of faith as "those with lesser mental acumen" and see how long it takes for someone of lesser mental acumen to report me.

You constantly refer to them as people of lesser [note the spelling] mental acumen and distinguish them from those with intelligence. So, yeah, sorry, but the way communication works is, you're calling them stupid.

I don't know. Learning from fiction is hard. I'd rather learn from stories about talking snakes and superheroes who lose their powers with a haircut.

"And yes, putting intellectual in quotes was quite intentional, not as a way to denigrate his education as much as it was to categorically include him in the intelligentsia that has been at work since olden times to effectually dethronethe spirit and obfuscated the simplicity and love of the truth in so many of lessor mental acumen." Ok, so let's be clear. TLC did not put intellectual in quotes to denigrate the scholar's education. Just to paint him as a tool of the devil. Let's not confuse the two. Because TLC has judged the heart of a priest who spent a lifetime serving people and studying the Bible with an open mind and heart (evidenced by reaching conclusions that are against his interest because that is where the evidence leads). You dare judge this man's spirituality after falsely accusing me of being "clueless" about you when I... what were your words... "actually know incredibly little about me, my background, my educational experience, my intelligence quotient, my life or my heart." Do you know anything about this man, his background, his educational experience, his intelligence quotient [nice correction there, genius. Don't think we didn't notice] his life or his heart before you brand him one in a long line of hoity toities who try to stop God from fooling stupid people? But it's okay when you do it. You know, if I called believers stupid half the number of times you have, I would be run out of this forum on a rail.