4 Shocking Things in the Bible, that Didn't Shock Me .....

4 Shocking Things in the Bible, that Didn't Shock Me ..... · A Dialogue Under One Comment

4 Shocking Things You Didn't Know Were in the Bible #2
The Doubter's Diary | 18 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX50HDZi4uo

1:28 In the Catholic Church, to which I belong, there is in lots of places still a habit from before the time of the printing press, and from times when farmers heard the Bible in Church.

I e, the Bible we hear is what the Priest wants to communicate to us.

Usually this works fine, I don't have a problem with it.

However, I very much recall my Protestant days, and have kept up the habit, of knowing about things in the Bible without a direct injunction from my Pastor or Priest.

So, as I presume you were a Protestant, I just wonder, what do you mean your pastor didn't tell you, weren't you supposed to read it on your own and ask him if anything puzzled you?

The Doubter's Diary

@The-Doubters-Diary

Go read Numbers 31. Then Leviticus 25:44-46 and then try and recall how many times your priest has talked about those passages (and dozens of others). Bet he hasn't. Cause he doesn't want you to know. And if you do ask, he'll have some ludicrous answer that might smooth you over temporarily, but makes no logical sense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@The-Doubters-Diary So, cruel actions during the Conquest and perpetual slavery of non-Hebrews?

My first catechist when I was converting commented on the first (I had been surrounded by sceptics on the boarding school) by saying, basically, not trying to recapture his words, but give the logical points:

• God is Lord of life and death
• therefore also supreme judge
• and on this occasion made Israelites his executioners.

The same can be stated about the punishment of slavery.

1:46 W a i t ... you mean your Bible study at home was so superdirected between Sundays that the pastors could simply give you diversions away from passages they weren't ready to speak up about?

Or, to put it from their perspective, keep directing you to what they regarded as "safe ground" ...?

Is your present Bible study as superdirected by Dillahunty?

3:08 The Lord was with Juda as much as Juda relied on Him, either when it meant simply conquering part, or because they didn't rely on Him sufficiently on the other part.

If a) the Lord had wanted Juda to conquer all by relying on Him and b) Juda had also relied on Him, even in the face of chariots of iron, Juda would have driven out the enemy in the plains as well.

3:32 "the Bible should say what it means and mean what it says"

Only if it's meant as a beginner's manual.

If God meant beginners to rely on catechism and preaching rather than full length Bible reading, that gives the Bible author a latitude to take concepts for granted rather than spell them out.

The Doubter's Diary

[smiley = lol]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are not very familiar with Catholicism are you?

The Doubter's Diary

Yes. My husband grew up Catholic. I simply put no stock into their teachings. It's meaningless to me.​ @hglundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The-Doubters-Diary Let me resume.

You and your husband are atheists. Basically, that should mean, neither of you care Protestantism over Catholicism or Catholicism over Protestantism, right?

However, when you argue against Christianity, you hold the Bible to a standard of telling a person born in the 20th C. exactly what it means 34~35 centuries earlier without any kind of interpreter? Without any kind of intro?

So, even if you are going to argue Atheism, how about considering the Catholic view of the Bible:

1) God inspired it for the Jewish Church up to the Crucifixion, and then for the Catholic Church after the Resurrection, up to when St. John ceased to live on earth;
2) God did not mean it directly for individuals of all times, He meant indidivuiduals in the OT era to access it through Hebrews, and individuals in the NT era to access it through Catholics;
3) and it will help fully and correctly trained bishops (and theologians other than bishops) to keep their doctrine on track, but it will not do as a beginners' manual, and it is not always as clear as a Readers' Digest, for such.

So, asking it to tell you what it means and mean what it tells you is the wrong criterium.

6:35 Context.

The king of Israel used to receive tribute from Moab in the time of Ahab.

We are talking of an expedition to reduce Moab back to tributary status.

The question is, was the wrath against Israel, or in the camp of Israel? Was it a mood about them, or was it their mood?

The Catholic Douay Rheims actually says: and there was great indignation in Israel, and presently they departed from him, and returned into their own country.

So, one could see this as the Israelites voluntarily lifting the siege in preference of being involved with such horrendous idolaters and their human sacrifice.

7:32 Let's assume, as the Catholic tradition does, that Matthew was the earliest Gospel.

He wrote it when Jews of the area were still talking of the event.

Later gospellers omitted it after Jews rejecting Christ had made an agreement not to talk about it and to pretend it hadn't happened.

"now remember um 7:40 Scholars think that Mark was written 7:42 first okay and then the other uh gospels 7:45 were written after that"

You are aware that this position, while existing earlier, marginally, became really popular among German Protestants during the Kulturkampf?

The Protestants were anyway liberals, able to pretend the NT involved accretions, so, if they could say "Matthew wasn't first" they maybe could get away with pretending some Matthean references to Peter were later accretions.

Why was this important during the Kulturkampf? Because Otto von Bismarck was trying to punish Catholics for obeying a Pope who lived and resided outside Germany.

It reminds me of how the latest Protestant sovereign to actually kill a priest wasn't an English monarch, the last priest who died there was Paul Atkinson, died in 1729, but that was after 30 years imprisonment.

The latest Protestant sovereign to do so (prior to Hitler, via intermediaries) was Frederick II of Prussia. In Silesia, Father Andreas or Andrew Faulhaber had heard the confession of a Catholic who had been drafted into the Prussian troops attacking Silesia.

The deserter said Faulhaber had given absolution, and Faulhaber was faced with two options: full disclosure of the confession, or, death. As disclosure of the confession would have been a sacrilege, he chose death, and Frederick II personally ordered the execution to take place. This was in 1757.

That's the kind of fanatical Anticatholic prejudice, that was ready to sacrifice the inerrancy of Matthew, and in that interest Matthean priority, to what had been a fringe theory.

Interestingly enough, the English wikipedia has no article on Andreas Faulhaber, but the story is there (very briedly) in the article on Heinrich August de la Motte Fouqué.

"In 1757, during the Seven Years' War, Fouqué hanged the Catholic priest Andreas Faulhaber for allegedly inciting Glatz's garrison to desert."

The full story is more like the absolution offered to a deserter being tantamount to such incitation.

Here is more on this man:

"In 1742, during the First Silesian War, Fouqué led a grenadier battalion and was named Governor of Glatz. The Calvinist dealt ruthlessly with Austrian irregulars in the Catholic County of Glatz, hanging many of them.[5] Promoted to Generalmajor on 13 May 1743, he was named commander of the Infanterie-Regiment Nr. 33 a year later. He guarded Friedrich von der Trenck at the prison of Glatz until the adventurer escaped in 1746. Frederick the Great promoted Fouqué to Generalleutnant on 22 January 1751."

Meanwhile, German wikipedia, fortunately, has an article on Blessed Andrew Faulhaber. Which is obviously longer than the sentence about Fouqué hanging Faulhaber cited above.

8:40 "Why isn't this written about in other texts outside the Bible?"

Like the appropriate issue of AD 33 editions of Jerusalem Post? Wait "The Jerusalem Post is a broadsheet newspaper based in Jerusalem, founded in 1932 during the British Mandate of Palestine by Gershon Agron as The Palestine Post." ... Haaretz? "It was founded in 1918, making it the longest running newspaper currently in print in Israel. It is published in both Hebrew and English in the Berliner format." Oh, wait, no Jerusalem Post, no Haaretz? No.

From AD 30 (or 16th year of Tiberius) to AD 96 ... "After the assassination of Domitian in AD 96, Tacitus published the Agricola, his first work" ... there is a media silence, a curfew on contemporary historians, actually mentioned in Agricola, and which can be seen in the fact that all the historians in the Roman Empire, from 30 to 96 were either silent or silenced about contemporary events, except the Synoptics and very late The Jewish War by Josephus.

So, out of three colleagues to Matthew (Luke counted as historian both for Gospel and for Acts), the two other synoptics didn't contradict him and would probably have been in favour, and the third being on the Jewish team and even born after this took place, would have had a reason, indoctrination from childhood to believe it didn't take place, or even an agreement so that through all of his years he never actually even heard of it.

This is chapter 2 of Agricola:

"We have read that the panegyrics pronounced by Arulenus Rusticus on Pætus Thrasea, and by Herennius Senecio on Priscus Helvidius, were made capital crimes, that not only their persons but their very books were objects of rage, and that the triumvirs were commissioned to burn in the forum those works of splendid genius. They fancied, forsooth, that in that fire the voice of the Roman people, the freedom of the Senate, and the conscience of the human race were perishing, while at the same time they banished the teachers of philosophy, and exiled every noble pursuit, that nothing good might anywhere confront them. Certainly we showed a magnificent example of patience; as a former age had witnessed the extreme of liberty, so we witnessed the extreme of servitude, when the informer robbed us of the interchange of speech and hearing. We should have lost memory as well as voice, had it been as easy to forget as to keep silence."

It's like asking "why are there no North Korean media covering it?"

Marc DC

@marcdc6809

the problem with complots is that two can play that game, without an independent verifiable source you're basically at a point where you don't know. Difference between an atheist and a theist is that 'I don't know' is a fine position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@marcdc6809 First, in English it's not "complot" but "plot" (I used to be a language teacher some months of last millennium).

Second, I was not theorising about a plot, I was pointing to a historic fact: books were heavily censored if about contemporary events, from Velleius Paterculus to Tacitus. Tacitus says so.

Josephus got away with writing contemporary events because he was friends with the Imperial Family.

Third, this fact explains the supposed difficulty in believing a thing "covered by no other sources" ... which was the one argument I was responding to.

How about you telling me what's wrong with that?

Marc DC

@hglundahl complot is a known word by the majority of native English People (who live in the US).

I'm thinking if you're keen on using arguments from autority, you'd better back up your level of autority.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@marcdc6809 I think you are as lousy on analysing my logic as you are about American English.

They may recognise the word "complot" but they will use the word "plot" ...

Marc DC

@hglundahl Exactly, I'm not asking them to use it, if they recognise it, that's just fine. I hope you're learning something now?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@marcdc6809 By your using "complot" I already learned that you are not English.

That people who use the word "plot" are able to recognise "complot" is no surprise.

So, you, the word isn't per se known, it's just recognised.

You are wrong about Americans knowing the word, and you are also wrong about my using an argument from authority.

Marc DC

@hglundahl I googled it, it's in their dictionary, they'd sooner say conspiracy, not plot... but also for them it was a google away to figure out what I meant. When I hear William Lane Craig use archaic words, I also think: he made that up, and then I look it up, and he often surprises me, and then I learn something new...

The argument that you're trying to make yourself sound like an authority is the bunch of extra detail you give... it's a typical thing that people do when they have no real case, they fluff it up with lots of extra things and hope the listener will just conclude: this guy knows lots of facts, he's probably right about that one too... it's just a technique, kudos that you try to use it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@marcdc6809 I actually do know things, because I looked them up.

EVERY historian that's just Roman and that dealt with contemporary history from Velleius Paterculus to Tacitus is a lost book.

Tacitus gives, in the beginning of Agricola an excellent reason why. The Emperors swooped down in narratives about contemporary heros.

Livy died before Velleius Paterculus wrote. And he didn't go to contemporary events. Or rather, when he did, those books are lost in his original.

The point is, the demand for confirming evidence is like asking for water in a desert. In the period you have no writers we still have, except Josephus and Christian writers, unless they wrote sth else than contemporary history. It's a fact, not padding, not conspiracy theory, not an argument from authority. If you don't believe me, do this, which I did years ago.

Go to English wikipedia. Go to Velleius Paterculus. Go down to "categories" and click Category:1st-century historians.

On that page, click each of the Romans (I think you'll agree we can skip the Chinese ones as irrelevant), and see on the article whether we have their book or just quotes from it. The last we have the book of is Velleius Paterculus, the first after this gap is Tacitus, and within it, you just have Josephus, who was friends with the Emperor.

Marc DC

@hglundahl Did you ever consider the alternative, that the figure they're talking about was not even a real person, that's why they needed to place the story a full generation in the past. Based on a messiah figure that are still today quite common, the crazy is not gone, look at Paula White, Raël, ... these people still get a following... the census was made up, the trip they made from Nazareth to Bethlehem with pregnant Maria... we would expect some notes left by the three wise men. How many people were present at the sermon on the mount?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@marcdc6809 "Did you ever consider the alternative,"

That was actually totally not the content of her objection, which is what I answered. You are changing the topic.

I have already answered her objection, "why is there no confirming evidence" and now for yours.

"that the figure they're talking about was not even a real person,"

Funny that Tacitus and Josephus seem to disagree with you.

"that's why they needed to place the story a full generation in the past."

Matthew writing in the 40's AD is NOT placing the story a full generation in the past.

"Based on a messiah figure that are still today quite common, the crazy is not gone, look at Paula White, Raël, ... these people still get a following"

Sorry, but that's irrelevant, since none claim Raël or Paula White rose from the dead or raised dead persons. They have a message, but no miracles to show for it.

"the census was made up, the trip they made from Nazareth to Bethlehem with pregnant Maria."

No. I have answered that one too. The census was not in Judaea. When St. Joseph went "to his city" according to the words, he went from Province to Protectorate, so, he did an act of tax evasion.

This census in Galilee, which was already a Province in the time of Herod the Great, was simply less remembered, outside the Gospel.

"we would expect some notes left by the three wise men."

You STILL did not get my answer? We would expect to find those notes where? Do you want confirmation of the Gallic Wars from Vercingetorix' personal diary or correspondence with Orgetorix? Or from Cicero keeping a watchful eye on them?

This is not the kind of evidence we have for anything in the 1st C. AD. And I mean anything at all.

There were two different sermons on the mount, one for the disciples in Matthew, one for the crowd in Luke. They are parallel, but not identic.

Marc DC

@hglundahl the wise men! three wise men came from the east, there must be some kind of record from these dudes who studied the event. Since Christianity is actually having their corporate headquarters in Rome, I'm afraid Josephus and Tacitus can't be considered unbiased, sorry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@marcdc6809 "there must be some kind of record from these dudes"

You don't know what you are talking of.

1st C AD is not 19th, 20th and 21st C. AD, starting with printing press, advancing to offset press, then radio, TV, internet, not to mention post offices.

You are simply dreaming.

If it were the stone age, you wouldn't doubt the word of a scientist, just because there were no written records by the Neanderthal confirming he was right, because you consider none of them had any writing.

There is a step between.

a) Written materials certainly existed, and even had some abundance;
b) but they were still far rarer than now;
c) and the ones that got written were more often than not lost because people didn't bother to copy them.

That is the state of affairs for 1st C. AD.

@marcdc6809 And "unbiassed" — first of all, they were if biassed any way rather biassed against Christianity, and second, dreaming of "unbiassed" sources in order to trust 1dt C. history is once again total moonshine!

9:03 Speaking of Lazarus ...

A great multitude therefore of the Jews knew that he was there; and they came, not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.
[John 12:9]
But the chief priests thought to kill Lazarus also:
[John 12:10]

At that level of polarisation, I would say, within some decades, the witnesses to Lazarus risen would be divided between Christians (or maybe all were Christians) and deniers of the fact, so as to please the enemies of Christ.

That should give you a perspective on the "zombie army" ... who weren't in fact zombified.

9:39 1849 is closer to our time than to that of the Gospels:

Saint Don Bosco, founder of the Salesian Order was blessed with a multitude of spiritual gifts including the gift of miracles and raising people from the dead. One of the most famous instances of the Saint raising a dead boy to life occurred in the year 1849. A 15 year old boy named Charles who used to attend the Oratory of Saint Don Bosco was dying. He kept calling for the Saint from his death bed. As the Saint was away, his parents called for another priest who heard the boy’s confession before he died.

When Saint Don Bosco returned from Turin and heard of the boy’s death he hurried to his home and asked about him. A servant of the house told him that the boy was dead for long. On hearing this Saint Don Bosco replied that the boy was “just asleep”. But the servant again assured him that the boy was dead and it was certified by the doctors and led him to the grieving parents of the boy. On seeing the Saint, the mother sadly informed him how Charles kept calling for him before he died. He was then taken to the sickroom chamber where the body of the boy was laid. The body of the boy lay there lifeless and ready for burial. It was sewn into a sheet with a white veil covering the head. St. Don Bosco asked everyone to leave the room except the mother and an aunt. He then closed the door, prayed for a moment and cried out “Charles! Rise!”

The body of the boy within the sheet began to move! ...

If you want the rest of the story, it's

Miracle of dead boy raised to life by St. Don Bosco:
(on:) Anointing Fire Catholic Ministries
https://www.afcmmedia.org/Mystical-10.html

10:20 So far, no one has come out pretending for serious Harry Potter happened.
Matthew would mean nothing like proof if from the start it had been entertainment purposed fiction.

I think you can recall very many passages from Matthew belying that kind of original genre. Especially since 56 % of the text is just words that Jesus spoke.

12:23 I think you have misunderstood exodus 32.

The ten commandments on the tablets were like previous.

What you cited is what Moses was told to write down, presumably on some easier writing material.

12:41 The part you read, like the parts in Exodus 20 after the commandments, are rules for the Old Testament worship and cleanness laws surrounding that worship.

As to who would boil a kid in its mother's milk, Egyptians regularly used dead kids as containing naturally rennet and in this way made their goat cheese.

I think there may be Jews to this day who count normal goat cheese or any cheese made with rennet as in violation of this law.

Instead of rennet, one can very well use bacteria, like mixing hot milk with yoghurt, or fig juice or even lemon juice or vinegar to make cheese.

12:52 The basics is, lots of OT rules are really about the Temple cult.

The Church even as early as the Epistles of St. Paul stated Herself as being out of that.

We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.
[Hebrews 13:10]

13:04 You oversimplify.

OT rules may pertain to no one as rules, but may still very well pertain to all as per what the rules were supposed to ultimately illustrate.

Usually sth about Christ.

John 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him.

Of whom? Of the paschal lamb! St. John refers to the Crucifixion as fulfilling the laws about the paschal lamb. Meaning, the laws no longer apply as rules, but they are still relevant as highlights about the Crucifixion.

13:56 That was for up to when the Messiah came.

How do we know?

1) The purpose of this very harsh punishment for fornication was to protect the ancestry of Jesus. As He already came, the rule no longer serves that purpose.
2) It supposes Israelites or at least the Judah remnant of them has some autonomy and ability to execute death penalties.

The last time Judah had that was when Herod the Great lived.

Unless you count the execution of Eichmann as such autonomy, but I don't count the modern State of Israel as the Biblical Judah.

There is in fact a prophecy relating to this:

Juda, thee shall thy brethren praise: thy hands shall be on the necks of thy enemies: the sons of thy father shall bow down to thee. Juda is a lion's whelp: to the prey, my son, thou art gone up: resting thou hast couched as a lion, and as a lioness, who shall rouse him? The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations. Genesis 49:8--10

Now, what exactly does the "sceptre" mean? It means the kind of supreme authority that allows a nation to execute criminals. In Daniel 13 we gather Judah retained this even in the Babylonian captivity.

But in John 8, we see how stoning had become a thing that from then on only lynch mobs (whom Jesus never supported) could dare to do.

14:12 St. Paul specifically confirms in Romans 1 that the ban on homosexual actions is universally valid.

Hercules and Hylas, as well as worshippers of Hercules, at least as the story had come to be understood at this time, as well as such worshippers who imitated his relation (or supposed such) to Hylas, well, they deserved death penalty, even if they weren't Israelites.

Also, God destroyed Sodom before giving a certain rule in Leviticus 20. See Genesis 19.

14:53 So, you can refer to Matt Dillahunty on this one.

Well, even if he's a Protestant heretic and not as real bishop, he had a good thing to say on this subject, so I'll refer to NT Wright

Where did Jesus go when he died? What happened to Jesus on the cross? Ask NT Wright Anything podcast
Premier Unbelievable? | 7 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WPL3ptrKRU

15:07 The Egyptians weren't sacrificing their children to God. They were punished by losing their children.

Big difference. Therefore, their loss cannot define what sacrifice means.

when God killed all the 15:03 firstborn of the Egyptians those 15:06 children were gone they truly had to 15:08 sacrifice to Yahweh Yahweh just had his 15:12 kid have a super bad weekend

Again, the Egyptians were punished, they were not sacificing.

Plus, God the Son did not have a "superbad weekend" He arguably enjoyed Himself after three agonising hours, down in Sheol, while bringing salvation and joy to loved ones like Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, and literally millions of others.

And obviously also chosing which ones of the dead should rise up immediately after the Crucifixion was nearly over.

The Doubter's Diary

Their children were "sacrificed" to the god of the bible for their king's bad behavior (which god himself created by hardening his heart). He killed their children and took them away forever. But with his son, he killed him brutally but then raised him. So what did god lose? Nothing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The-Doubters-Diary The punishment was not a sacrifice.

When you or I die, it's an act of God, doesn't automatically mean we are sacrificed to Him.

"So what did god lose?"

What is the correlation between loss and sacrifice?

Egyptian sons weren't sacrificed.

Isaac wasn't lost.

The Doubter's Diary

Ok, have it your way...they were brutally murdered children by the god you worship. There ya go.​ @hglundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The-Doubters-Diary Neither more nor less than any other person who dies is "brutally murdered" by the actual giver of life who also lords over death.

It doesn't even say any of the children who died suffered.

But their dads and mums certainly did.

Fr. Carlos Martins explains: When the dead are seen walking the earth
Christians on Youtube | 22 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_IgNw8HkNI

15:53 So, you had no explanation from your pastor?

This might be because he was uncomfortable with one term used for diverse meanings.

Perhaps that concept doesn't even make sense to you?

Well, perhaps that's a reason why we should not just accept your take on what the Bible says. And what it "obviously" means ...

I think this little quote may help you as to what you lack in understanding of polysemy:

For who in the clouds can be compared to the Lord: or who among the sons of God shall be like to God
Psalms 88:7

The Doubter's Diary

You absolutely should NOT accept my take on the bible. Read it yourself. But do yourself a favor and lose the apologetics. You're being lied to.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The-Doubters-Diary Did you just delete my response?

I said: if my apologetics is a lie, that makes me a liar, I'm the apologist here.

You are, even so, so convinced of my honesty, you will paint me as victim of a shadow army, that exists in your head.

"Jesus was one of the sons of God"

Well, no.

For who in the clouds can be compared to the Lord: or who among the sons of God shall be like to God
Psalms 88:7

So, when sons of God is spoken of in the plural, that's one thing, not equal to the Father.

Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, shew us the Father? Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.
John 14:9,f

So, this is one of a kind, a very special kind, that actually is equal to the Father.

"if you 17:39 have an all powerful all knowing God 17:43 certainly he could write a book that the 17:45 average person like me I am an average 17:48 person I probably have average 17:50 intelligence I am not some intellectual 17:54 rock star wouldn't God want to write a 17:57 book that I could could read in black 18:00 and white and understand exactly what it 18:03 says"

Your objection basically presumes the Protestant view of how God meant the Bible. As His instruction book for you personally without your needing any human guides.

If that's how God meant the Bible, your challenge is paramount.

But if God meant it for a different purpose, it isn't any more.

Marc DC

Even without the bible, the Abrahamic god of jews, muslims and christians have this in common... he was the conscious designer of cholera... what gives people the idea that this sad being would have a plan for your happy eternal afterlife?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@marcdc6809 Cholera helps fallen man to realise this life is not what we are made for.

Plus vibrio cholerae is an evolved or devolved form of some other bacterium.

"Gram-negative, facultative anaerobe and comma-shaped bacteria."

"Gammaproteobacteria, especially the orders Alteromonadales and Vibrionales, are fundamental in marine and coastal ecosystems because they are the major groups involved in nutrient cycling.[12] Despite their fame as pathogens, they find application in a huge number of fields, such as bioremediation and biosynthesis."

"why does God need you to 18:47 explain to me what makes you so much 18:50 more intelligent than me what makes your 18:53 pastor so much more intelligent than me"

Have you ever been more intelligent than any of the teachers you trusted?

Have you ever had a pupil more intelligent than you who still trusted you?

Being more intelligent and knowing the answer are two different things.

And the reason for knowing the answer (on this subject) is to at least be in line with those who went before since Jesus time in the Catholic Church.

Can you pick up a random verse (or at least chapter) in the OT and say how it relates to Jesus, as a prophecy?

Well, if not, you need instruction, which should be available somewhere according to Luke 24:44,f.