Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[vorlon13]

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed.

Only an idiot jesus freak could ignore the fact that there are two different time periods claimed, before 4 BC and during or after 6 AD.

And they wonder why we laugh at their bullshit when they can't even get their story straight.

and then having a Holy tome, frequently represented as Inerrant (and it is certainly plausible insinuating it isn't by the Faithful is heretical or worse) that nevertheless attests the main event as occurring twice, once each on consecutive days, shouldn't that raise some eyebrows ??

And then we (those of us outside of 'inner circle') find out amongst theologians and bible study experts the double crucifixion 'difficulty' is common knowledge (!!!) but it seems they never get around to mentioning it to the pew warmers for fear of spooking them or worse, impacting the collection plate.

So, we have a critically flawed book and it's being protected by some poohbahs with damn little interest in spreading the inconvenient truth, instead, they're vested in maintaining the status quo lest they need to find honest work.