What Took Jesus So Long?

[Drich]

Ah, but it was not my estimated age.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Ah, but it is your estimated age. For right here in black and white luke records "about 30." You say defiantly, 30. Luke age=30+/- a few years. You on the other hand say 30 period!
Do you really need me to explain further?

So you see, through the word of God, Jesus was 30.

no. I see about 30 which 33 could be considered about 30. They did not count years as strictly as we do. That is why luke just a couple decades removed from Christ did not know exactly, so my question to you is how can you possible know 2000 years later?

(Did you see what I did there? I said 2000 years later and it is more like 1980 years later, but before I said anything I bet your like 2000 years is about right, why? Because we do not scrutinize vast amounts of time unless it matters. To them ones aprox age was good enough as well.)

Now, I may be mistaken, but I believe you once said that every word in the Bible is not perfect. This wouldn't be a big mistake, but it's one of the few facts we have to the historicity of Jesus. I could also say that Jesus wouldn't lie about his age, backwards or forwards. What purpose would that serve? Just so God could get a jump-start on spreading his word? And, to augment something I already asked, if God was willing to lie about his age, why not do it sooner?

you are making huge assumptions, that I am going to have to call you on before we can go any further. I never said the word of the bible is not perfect. I said the bible it self never claims to be perfect. That the doctrine e of InFallibility comes from marrying two seperate verses from two different authors.

Second where does Jesus claim to be thirty?

You guys create strawmen and jump to way too many unsubstainted conclusions about everything. This is why you all have such a hard time arguing with me. You assume too much most of the time rather than looking at the facts as they present, and taking them for face value.

Again, before we proceed first you must establish what you have said
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
[/quote]
Ah, but it is your estimated age. For right here in black and white luke records "about 30." You say defiantly, 30. Luke age=30+/- a few years. You on the other hand say 30 period!
Do you really need me to explain further?

So you see, through the word of God, Jesus was 30.

no. I see about 30 which 33 could be considered about 30. They did not count years as strictly as we do. That is why luke just a couple decades removed from Christ did not know exactly, so my question to you is how can you possible know 2000 years later?

(Did you see what I did there? I said 2000 years later and it is more like 1980 years later, but before I said anything I bet your like 2000 years is about right, why? Because we do not scrutinize vast amounts of time unless it matters. To them ones aprox age was good enough as well.)

Now, I may be mistaken, but I believe you once said that every word in the Bible is not perfect. This wouldn't be a big mistake, but it's one of the few facts we have to the historicity of Jesus. I could also say that Jesus wouldn't lie about his age,

You guys create strawmen and jump to way too many unsubstainted conclusions about everything. This is why you all have such a hard time arguing with me. You assume too much most of the time rather than looking at the facts as they present, and taking them for face value, and asking questions based on what I say. Rather your too busy trying to hold on to the demonized version of Christianity that cost you your faiths. It's like deep down you know you need this bastardized version of Christianity otherwise your justification for disbelief in God may waver.

Again, before we proceed first you must establish what you have said above.