Winter Wheat Video Lecture

[Mr Laurier]

The scholars of the day put Him on the cross after the decision to crucify Him passed peer review in a series of rigged trials.

And who were these scholars? When did scholars have such power?
Where and when would peer review involve a series of rigged trials?
And who or what is "Him"?

 

[Mr Laurier]

The Bible.

... which says nothing about any "Him" being crucified by any scholars.
And which was written before peer review existed.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Jesus went through six illegal trials before He was whisked away to the Cross.

That's not my "twisted interpretation."

That's basic doctrine.

Jesus is Jesus. Not "Him".
Jesus was crucified by roman soldiers who could not read their own names, under orders from Roman politicians who were not scholars either. Bowing to pressure from native nationalists, who again were not scholars.
The bible says there was ONE trial, in strict accordance with Roman law.
Where are you getting six trials from?

 

[AV1611VET]

No you dont.

Let's end this right here.

QV please: 10 Reasons the Trial of Jesus was Illegal

They are as follows:

1. Jesus was arrested illegally.
2. It was a private night proceeding.
3. The Sanhedrin illegally proceeded to hold its trial of Jesus before sunrise.
4. The Sanhedrin was illegally convened to try a capital offense on a day before an annual Sabbath (holy day).
5. The trial of Jesus was illegal because it was concluded in one day.
6. The indictments against Jesus were false or unproven.
7. The condemnation of Jesus by part of the Sanhedrin was illegal because those who might have voted against His condemnation were not there.
8. The sentence against Jesus was pronounced in a place forbidden by law.
9. Most Sanhedrin members themselves were legally disqualified to try Jesus.
10. They illegally switched the charges against Jesus from blasphemy to treason before Pilate.

Now ... do you still say that is my "twisted interpretation"? or are you willing to admit you were wrong?

 

[VirOptimus]

Let's end this right here.

QV please: 10 Reasons the Trial of Jesus was Illegal

They are as follows:

1. Jesus was arrested illegally.
2. It was a private night proceeding.
3. The Sanhedrin illegally proceeded to hold its trial of Jesus before sunrise.
4. The Sanhedrin was illegally convened to try a capital offense on a day before an annual Sabbath (holy day).
5. The trial of Jesus was illegal because it was concluded in one day.
6. The indictments against Jesus were false or unproven.
7. The condemnation of Jesus by part of the Sanhedrin was illegal because those who might have voted against His condemnation were not there.
8. The sentence against Jesus was pronounced in a place forbidden by law.
9. Most Sanhedrin members themselves were legally disqualified to try Jesus.
10. They illegally switched the charges against Jesus from blasphemy to treason before Pilate.

Now ... do you still say that is my "twisted interpretation"? or are you willing to admit you were wrong?

No, I’m not wrong.

Will you answer my question now?

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree. You certainly know the basic doctrine of your own subset of Christianity.

Then Mr. Optimist, who LIKED your post, apparently has had a change of mind?

 

[VirOptimus]

Then Mr. Optimist, who LIKED your post, apparently has had a change of mind?

No, I have not.

Of course you know your own beliefs, basic theology or/and basic christianity, not so much.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I’m not wrong.

Wow -- just wow.

I'll bet you made the dean's list in college, didn't you?

 

[VirOptimus]

Wow -- just wow.

I'll bet you made the dean's list in college, didn't you?

I dont do bets.

Will you answer now?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course you know your own beliefs, basic theology or/and basic christianity, not so much.

Nice.

Solid aurum.

 

[VirOptimus]

Nice.

Solid aurum.

I can only judge you on your posts.

will I get an answer?

 

[AV1611VET]

I can only judge you on your posts.

Ya ... science's Investigate-Before-You-Communicate can take a hike, can't it?

You only made yourself look bad.

... will I get an answer?

Sure: grape juice.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ya ... science's Investigate-Before-You-Communicate can take a hike, can't it?

You only made yourself look bad.Sure: grape juice.

1. No

2. Your sayings about bible innerancy is then defeated by yourself. Congratulations.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I dont do bets.

Will you answer now?

I take bets.
I call out AV. An even grand.
If Optimus made the Dean's list in any college for that post, I'll cough up a thousand dollars for you.
If no college has placed him on the Dean's list for said post, you can send your prepaid cheque or money order to..
Dan L Beaulieu.
2860, 6th ave west.
Apt# 329
Owen Sound, Ontario.
N4k 5X8

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's Genetic entropy. Self-explanatory.

The kind of phrase that could only be invented by someone who knows (some/a little/nothing/a lot) about genetics but has no comprehension of entropy.

 

[renniks]

Then

Why should I prove it to you, since you're not the one making the argument? Why should I prove anything to you? I don't care what you believe about evolution--you're the one trying to prove it false (for some reason you are shy about revealing.)

Why are you here then?

 

[VirOptimus]

Then

Why are you here then?

I dont know about him, but I’m here for the (unintentional) humour.

 

[Speedwell]

Then

Why are you here then?

Because I strongly object to the false statements creationists frequently make about the theory of evolution and the beliefs of non-creationists on the subject.

 

[AV1611VET]

If Optimus made the Dean's list in any college for that post, I'll cough up a thousand dollars for you.

I didn't say he made the dean's list for just that post.

He first accuses me of making up a "twisted interpretation."
When shown otherwise, he doesn't back down.
Then he says I don't know my doctrine (Post 119).
Then, on the very next post (120), when someone agrees that I do know my doctrine, he LIKES the post.

That tells me that he is a very scholarly person and, IN MY OPINION, I sincerely think he made the dean's list.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I didn't say he made the dean's list for just that post.

He first accuses me of making up a "twisted interpretation."
When shown otherwise, he doesn't back down.
Then he says I don't know my doctrine (Post 119).
Then, on the very next post (120), when someone agrees that I do know my doctrine, he LIKES the post.

That tells me that he is a very scholarly person and, IN MY OPINION, I sincerely think he made the dean's list.

What would he have made the Dean's list for?