To: Uncle Chip
And the basis for calling the comments “nonsense” would be what? Would you care to explain?
10 posted on
04/09/2008 6:55:07 AM PDT by
count-your-change
(you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: count-your-change
Sure -- as I wrote:
"Luke's account took place in 70 AD, but Matthew's is future history."
11 posted on
04/09/2008 7:49:26 AM PDT by
Uncle Chip
(TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
To: count-your-change
The other poster is saying that 70 AD was after the event. I believe, from my Hannegraffe readings, that 70 AD was the exact year that this happened.
One book of the bible was foretelling, the other telling what already happened.
12 posted on
04/09/2008 7:52:08 AM PDT by
MrB
(You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
To: count-your-change; Uncle Chip
And the basis for calling the comments “nonsense” would be what? Would you care to explain? You must accept his overall thesis to believe they are speaking of two different events separated by thousands of years. The thesis must be strong enough to discount/explain all the obvious parallelisms between the two texts.
Ask him to articulate the thesis which requires us to believe they are two different events.
14 posted on
04/09/2008 8:12:47 AM PDT by
topcat54
("Light beer is the devil's beverage.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson