Raf

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.

This is incorrect. In 30 AD, the preparation day, NISAN 14, was a Friday. Unless you have a better source than the one I'm consulting.

Nope. Just positively cite history and rip it from its context to apply it to concepts that don't apply/ For example, there was indeed a period of a co-regency or co-principes in AD 13, no one but no one counted that as the beginning of his reign. Tiberius was given authority during the reign of Augustus, but it was still Augustus' reign and all historians of the time would have rendered it so. History records Tiberius' reign as beginning in AD 14. For Luke to have meant otherwise would require him to say so, and he did not. Chalk one up to another failure of the church's first "real" historian. So let's assume you're correct: The 15th year of Tiberius, if it were in 27, would mean John started baptizing in 27 AD. Jesus could then be baptized ... starting at least six months later. Still in 27. But let's say 26 to account for variables in Jesus and John's relative birthdates. If Jesus is baptized in 26 AD (at the age of 27 or 28, which is under 30) and has a ministry of less than 1 year, his execution is in 27 AD. The preparation day then was on a Friday. If Jesus is baptized in 26 AD (at the age of 27 or 28, which is under 30) and has a ministry of just over a year, then he is no longer a lamb of the first year. But whatever, that puts his execution at AD 28: Preparation day was a Wednesday. (Consistent with TWI, but you need to account for him being under 30). If Jesus is baptized in 27 (at the age of 28 or 29, which is still under 30) and has a ministry of under a year, he is executed in 28. Preparation is a Wednesday. ( Consistent with TWI, but you need to account for him being under 30). If his ministry is a little over a year, then he is not a lamb of the first year, but whatever: execution is AD 29. Preparation day is a Monday. That doesn't agree with tradition or TWI, and it far exceeds three days and three nights by any reckoning. We've already covered a 28 baptism, I think. Back to 26: a ministry of 3 years brings us to AD 29. Monday. More than three years but less than 4 (not consistent with any gospel) brings us to 30: Preparation is a Friday. back to 27: three years brings us 30: Preparation is a Friday. More than 3 but less than 4 (not consistent with any gospel) brings us to 31. Preparation day is a Wednesday. So what do we learn? In order to get a baptism date before 29 AD, we have to ignore how history records the reign of Tiberius and count his preparation time under Augustus, which no historian does and Luke does not hint at. If you do that, you get several possible years for the crucifixion consistent with some mixture of tradition and TWI doctrine. Nothing is entirely consistent because Jesus is too young under dates of 26 and 27 and too old under dates of 29 and after. You really have to bank on the imprecision of the gospels saying Jesus was about 30 when he was baptized. Why 30? Well, evidently that's the year when people could begin serving/ministering (Numbers 4:3) although I don't see why Jesus couldn't be younger or older. Nor do I see why Luke needed to be so imprecise. Why not just say he was 28 or 29 or 32? Because if you don't know something, you have to fudge it. So, let's all have some fun here and say Jesus is baptized before... 29. It doesn't matter how long before. It just has to be before. You guessed it: There's another problem. There was a war in 34 AD between Aretas, King of Nabataea, and Herod Antipas, who ruled Galilee. Seems Antipas was married to Aretas' daughter, but Antipas had his sights set on another woman: His own brother's wife. Antipas and his brother's wife agreed to marry, but when Aretas' daughter found out about it, she asked her husband for permission to take a brief trip, during which she escaped and returned to her father. All this is according to Josephus. Aretas was furious and went to war with Antipas. How long between the escape and the war did Antipas marry his sister-in-law? From Josephus' account, it was not a lot of time. He presents it as one string of events culminating in battle. A year? Two? FIVE? Let's say five years. That makes it 29 AD when the wife escapes. It's clear that the marriage of Antipas to wifey number 2 takes place after the escape. There is zero record of Aretas' daughter escaping AFTER the second marriage of Antipas. The problem is, it's his criticism of the second marriage of Antipas that gets John thrown in prison, according to the gospels. But that is inconsistent with Josephus' description of what led to the war between Aretas and Antipas. Josephus does not say Aretas waited six, seven or eight years to wage war on Antipas. Even allowing for five seems unjustified by the account. So what? So if John the Baptist had time to criticize the second marriage of Herod Antipas, as the gospels claim, he had to be alive when that marriage took place. The earlier the date, the less likely that marriage would have been the proximate cause of a war as recorded by Josephus, an actual historian who did his homework and described his methodology. Also, the earlier you make the marriage, the shorter you make the ministry of John the Baptist, giving him less and less time to amass the following he's alleged to have had. Josephus says Antipas feared John might have the charisma to start a rebellion. That implies a significant and loyal following. That implies time. Arrest John the baptist less than a year after he begins baptizing people, and you haven't really accounted for that following. The longer you wait, the more consistent you get with Josephus but the less consistent you get with your required Biblical timeline. Because John has to die before Jesus. And if the marriage of Antipas takes place too long before 34, it can scarely be seen by Josephus as the significant impetus for that war. So go ahead, make the 15th year of Tiberius any year you want. But if you make it too early, you have Jesus executed before John the Baptist. And if you make it too late, Jesus gets too old for the gospel accounts. What to do?

There are literally zero manuscripts that do not contain Matthew 28:19. That said, you still did not address Luke. Cannot preach the gospel to the ends of the Earth without including Gentiles. It is impossible.

"Make disciples of all the nations" How is that NOT "preach to gentiles"?

"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.