Raf

I should clarify something. I said this STARTED as bad news. I cannot overstate that. This started as very, very bad news. Any joy in what "great news" happens today is tempered by the bad news that kicked it off. That said, we can raise a glass (hopefully) while remembering how much more wonderful it would be if we didn't have to. If you haven't figured it out by now: 3 p.m. If you have, shhh. Don't spoil it.

so that was a swing and a miss, then. Hm. Good pitcher.

Tomorrow! Tomorrow! I love ya! Tomorrow!

one

Jesus could look the 12 right in the eye and say Make disciples of all nations and STILL we have to twist ourselves into knots over whether the 12 were ever commissioned to preach the gospel to all the nations. Wow. And people wonder why I throw my hands up trying to reason with them.

The Getaway Steve McQueen The Towering Inferno That oughta open it up. Ali @#$&ing McGraw

Click here for a down-to-the-second Countdown Clock!

Trying to copy and paste a code onto here. Not really doing so great. TWO DAYS!!!

Based on Matthew 28:19, there is no reason for them to have accepted this framework if they had ears. He said to them to go and make disciples of all the nations. They would have had to go through some quite sophisticated gymnastics to go from a clear instruction like that to "ok, first Israel, then Christ comes back, THEN the rest of the world." You can get Israel first out of Luke, but not Matthew. And in neither case does Christ's return PRECEDE preaching to the gentiles.

70 hours from 5 p.m. EDT Friday.

Spiritual insight is literally the opposite of evidence. Belittling actual evidence with unnecessary qualifiers like "material" or "senses" betrays a lack of confidence in the non-evidence being asserted as equally valuable. Evidence is evidence. If God is telling you something, prove it. Give me the number (which I have already disclosed to another poster so I can't pretend you were wrong if you are right). Nobody in the initial posts or videos on this thread claimed the resurrection happened because God said so. All point to evidence, failing to recognize the embarrassing flaws in Luke and Acts. Defend Luke! Defend the gospel writers! But "spiritual insight" is a chicken-sh*t excuse for recognizing the evidence opposes your position. God told me you're full of sh*t. Now, based on the evidence, who's right?

Oh please. I'm thinking of a number between one and infinity. If you are connected to an omniscient God, tell me the number. Every single religion has a variation of "believe and you will see." You haven't addressed facts. You haven't refuted or contested the findings of educated professionals. All you have done is placed non evidence on the same plane as educated analyses of factual material. Seeing that your non evidence is inadequate, you declare it spiritual and claim that it's an Insight from the Almighty. Muhammad could do that. Joseph Smith could do that. Victor Paul wierwille could do that. Any idiot could do that. But there's no evidence to support it.

I repeat that which is not refuted but merely repeated: One you accept tht which is unprovable as true, nothing is unprovable.

I actually like Rocky's, but just to be clear:

Once you accept the unprovable as proof, nothing is unprovable.

How many crucified with Jesus depends entirely on whether you require inerrancy. If not, the contradictions are just that. There were three crosses. If you require inerrancy, I don't see how you get away without five crosses (though you have to add words to the gospel of John either way). How many entries into Jerusalem? Same thing. Each gospel records one and disagrees on when. The simple solution is one, with writers disagreeing on when. If you require inerrancy, fine, it happened twice. Same with the cleansing of the Temple. Did it happen at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, as in John, or near the end, as in all the other gospels? Again, depends on inerrancy. Each gospel records one and only one cleansing of the Temple. Maybe it happened twice and none of the gospel writers noticed or cared. As for the candles, I'm not seeing the Biblical significance. Care to elaborate?

oh great. Daniel again.

Convenient. I will concede that it's a judgment call to argue that too much time passed between pre-AD 27 and AD 34 for the second marriage of Antipas to be the proximate cause of a war with Aretas. Personally, I think that's a LOT of time. But again, we're in doctrinal and not in questioning faith, so I'm content here to find a framework that fits the available info. Born Tishri 1 in the year we would call 3 BC. Baptized as his 30th birthday approached in 26 AD. I'll do you one better: any reason to presume his baptism was in late summer or early fall? Because if he's baptized in the spring of 26, then there's a Passover in 26, a second Passover in 27 (the year John the Baptist dies) and a third in 28 when Jesus dies. That gives you a two year ministry and a crucifixion date of 28, in which preparation day is a Wednesday. That puts Thursday as the sabbath High Day and Saturday as the time of the resurrection, but Sunday as the first time anyone notices it. I don't know, I'm just plugging in numbers

"About 0" works precisely because it's imprecise. Why would the scripture be imprecise? Was he 30 or not? They get so specific with the age this person was when he begat that person, but when it comes to Jesus' age at the time of baptism, suddenly it's "meh, 30 more or less."

You didn't ask if it happened. You asked: "If anyone can plainly show from scripture where this directive for the 12 ever changed, please do so." The directive from the lips of Jesus himself to the 12 was to get out there and preach to everybody. Make disciples of all nations. That's just Bible. True that they didn't do it. [Makes you wonder if it ever really happened. But that's another subforum]. But that wasn't the question.

The goalposts just won't stay still. "Zooming in" and "zooming out" is fair. You still need to consider the evidence. That's not the same as "spiritual perception," as I addressed earlier. But when zooming and and zooming out, if you accept non-evidence AS evidence, you beg the question, creating a circular reasoning trap you cannot escape. The moment you say "the means of approach that God used with Israel," you've fallen into the trap. You are now taking as a given that which you are trying to prove. How did God deal with Israel? By parting the Red Sea and destroying the Egyptian Army (never happened)? By leading the Israelites out of Egypt (never happened)? By Noah's flood (never happened)? You cannot assume that which you are trying to prove and cite it as proof of that which you have assumed! I mean, you can. You just can't make a logical argument for it without being called on it.

The shortened verse quoted by Eusebius, to the best of my memory, said "disciple all nations in my name," which is still a pretty blunt calling to preach to the gentiles.