Raf

"Co-reign"? We're just making sh*t up now?

"Spiritual perspective" assumes that which you are trying to prove and is invalid as evidence because of circular reasoning. It needs to be repeated: every religion has some variation of "believe first, then see." The result is people willing to force square pegs into round holes because they now have a vested interest in the outcome of the subject or phenomenon they are questioning. Remember when you said "resurrections don't happen" as the reason evidence wouldn't lead to the resurrection? Ever wonder why I didn't repeat that? Because it would be circular reasoning. I can't say the resurrection didn't happen because resurrections don't happen. That is assuming what I'm trying to prove. In order to ascertain whether something happened, you have to evaluate the evidence that it did. And the evidence for the resurrection is poor: five accounts written by non-witnesses decades up to a century after it happened. Paul's account of seeing the risen Christ is as self-serving as Joseph Smith's claim of translating golden plates. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John craft historical novels that betray themselves at every opportunity (no way do the first three leave out the resurrection of Lazarus if it really happened; no way did Pilate free a condemned man on Passover... whose name just happened to be Jesus Son of the Father. Joseph of Arimathea didn't exist because Arimathea, which means best disciple, didn't exist). We've already been over the post resurrection contradictions. We have zero firsthand accounts from the apostles. No accounts of their transformation from timid fishermen to bold spokesmen for God who escape from prison following undocumented earthquakes. There is not a single documented historical account of anyone in a position to know refusing to renounce the resurrection on pain of death. Empty tomb? There was none. The descriptions in the gospels defy common sense. It belonged to someone who didn't exist. Paul. never. cited. the. empty. tomb. as. evidence. And he claimed there were 500 witnesses... an appearance no gospel writer found worth mentioning. To say the evidence is lacking is being generous. "Spiritual perspective" bypasses the reasoning process by assuming what you are trying to prove. It is not evidence. I cannot assume resurrections don't happen to prove the resurrection didn't happen. You cannot assume it did happen to prove it happened. That's only fair.

First, the nations are Gentiles by definition. The disobedience of the 12 does not invalidate his instruction to make disciples of all nations. If anything, it shows he needed Paul because the 12 were not doing what he explicitly told them to do. That's the simplest Biblical explanation

Preach the gospel to all nations... You don't see where that includes gentiles. For real.

But the preparation day is not the sabbath.

The problem with 28 AD as the year of the crucifixion is Luke telling us that John doesn't start baptizing people until the 15th year of Tiberius which is 29 AD.

The ceremony was 76. The movie was 75. But yes, Dog Day Afternoon, starting Michael Corleone and his brother Fredo.

This clue is plagiarized:

Matthew 28:19. I'll be in my trailer. Acts 1: 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” That is, at LEAST, an implication.

It's funny: when I first came onto this thread it was only about Pivot Point and Chris Geer, and I wasn't really thinking much about the thread topic. Reading through it all and realizing where I was in my personal journey at the time (still Christian but having major doubts) it is quite illuminating. I'm sorry I ignored it at first, but now I wish I could go back and reply to every single post. Don't tempt me. Do I think Paul contradicted himself? Yes, no, and yes. The letters that are supposedly from Paul do contradict themselves. So yes. But I don't think he wrote all of them, which would explain most of those contradictions (they were written by people borrowing Paul's authority, but they weren't really Paul). So no. But even within letters that are not disputed, there are some contradictions. So yes. Nothing about I Corinthians 14:34-35 makes any sense in any context given how Paul wrote about women elsewhere, no matter what context you want to pretend exists there. But by and large, Paul is fairy consistent, especially when you only count the stuff scholars agree he wrote unanimously.

I wonder what else will happen on April 15 that might pique my interest... We will find out... in 6 DAYS!

So Life of Brian would be... something approximating? A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm going by these dates, but if you have a better site, I'm all ears. On that list, the 14th (preparation day) is a Friday. Saturday (the weekly sabbath and the special sabbath) coincided. Sometimes Christmas falls on a Sunday, Happens. Also, the stuff I looked at earlier kind of relies on Jesus' ministry being less than a year. If tradition is correct and it was three years, then his death was in 32 AD. Nisan 14 was a Monday. And, of course, if Luke is wrong about AD 29 (like he was wrong about the census around the time of Jesus' birth), AND TWI was wrong about the birth date, then we've opened a number of possibilities, none of which can be verified.

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.