TLC

I'm sure there must be a name for this kind of flawed logic. I just don't know what it is. flawed? ...because you don't care to (or can't) connect the dots? Or is it that you have some different view or better understanding of Ezek.37:21-28?

Allow me to correct that for you. My view of it is incompatible with your (apparently limited) scope and/or comprehension of scripture. Actually, the scripture that I cited in my response (see below) to your first attempt to answer the question was indeed relevant to the question. Hard to get much more relevant, imo. Because you're being such a ridiculous and utter twit about it, still trying (again) to twist and distort the truth of what I have and haven't said about it (when the discussion was plainly under the umbrella of "doctrinal.") Fact: This entire post of mine (below) was strictly a response to your posting a reference to Acts 1:7 I don't see that departs from the gospel (of the Kingdom) message that was preached previously. It simply elaborates on the fact that they would soon be equipped better for it, and where it could (or perhaps some day would) reach. Furthermore, I don't see that it automatically or necessarily includes any Gentiles, considering that (as a result of Israel's previous dispersion into all nations.) In fact, if that message meant to include Gentiles, why were (all 12 of) the apostles apparently so disobedient of it so many, many years? (see Acts 11:19, which was probably at least a good 10-11 years later.) Fact: If it wasn't clear enough for you that I gave no thought to Matthew 28:19 in that particular post, that should have been more than obvious in my next post (below.) If by that (I presume you might be referring to the use of that phrase in Matthew 24:14) you mean some day in the future (which I think is yet to come, after the gathering of the church of the body of Christ)... then, yes. Evidently you prefer to ignore this possibility, and think there is no scripture anywhere in the Bible that might lend any credence whatsoever to such a crazy idea as that. [that yes... it would and does include gentiles, if and/or when Israel becomes a "kingdom of priests." see Exodus 19:6.] However, might I suggest that you dig a little deeper in scripture, and/or talk to some of your Jewish buddies or scholars (whatever the case might be) that believe in (and are expecting the arrival of) a Messiah. Try learning a bit more about where or what role Israel expects to play out in the global picture. Maybe then you'll back off a little from such a pompous position. Or, maybe not. In any event, seems I'm done here under the "questioning faith" umbrella of what Paul said or did. In 2Tim. 2:4 he writes "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith" ... and it so happens that I believe that he did. Others can choose to believe whatever they want to about him, or whatever is written about him.

Sure there is. But that would be off topic from what seems to be the originator's intent of this thread.

not in the slightest... even though after being admonished for it by another moderator, you continue wanting to make it personal. we see it differently, and long ago I gave my view of it. you can neither acknowledge or accept that. "your way" is the only right way and everyone else is wrong. there are words for that, but you certainly don't need any more help making this any more about you.

Absolutely. And there were a LOT of them that asked (aka, "pushed") for it. Because if you had the right title, people would hear (listen to) you. Or so the story goes... However, there were those (as least one... and probably some number of others) that when asked if they wanted to be ordained, declined (and never were.)

Why suppose that the instructions given to Paul were exactly the same as what was given others previously?

The topic had (obviously) changed. Say or call it whatever you want, it is and will remain your interpretation (be it right or wrong) of the Bible's answer. Which, has no affect or correlation to what I do or don't (much less should or shouldn't) believe concerning the book.

That's a crock of BS that anyone with half a brain could see through. Evidently you find some sort of perverse pleasure in thwarting any sort of discovery or discussion of differences between the gospel message that the twelve apostles preached and the gospel that Paul introduced. Continue playing your sick little game, Raf, but I won't. You went back over 3 pages (July of last year) in this thread to spin some comment made in a rather different context (concerning a change in the gospel and the authority that Paul might have had) into what I thought was a discussion about differences between what the twelve preached and what Paul preached. Yet, rather than consider or look at what the actual message is or isn't, you remain hell bent on patting yourself on the back that you (an atheist) think you might have found a scripture that I didn't know was in the Bible or don't believe what it says (even though you're flat out wrong on both accounts.) Not that you will care or give a hoot, but I'll ask this for the sake of anyone else reading. Did Jesus (while he lived here with his disciples) ever not keep and follow the law? When did trying to do likewise and teaching others to "observe all things whatsoever" Jesus commanded them [the 12] to do change? Or did it... ever?

You don't believe it was ever said by Jesus, as written in scripture, so why are you even on this thread? Isn't this supposed to be about what Paul said? Frankly, I don't really give a hoot whether or not the 12 apostles did or didn't understand his instructions. Fact is, their focus and intent was reach all of Israel with their message first and foremost. All you seem intent on doing is accusing me (by implication) of any and every ill or stupid thing you can think of, as if you know exactly what was meant in words that you don't believe were ever spoken by Jesus. And you dare talk about having to be as dumb as a brick. But, I guess it's some game you like to play to control whatever board (or thread) or conversation you can.

I'm not surprised why you might have difficulty putting yourself in someone else's shoes, and trying to consider something from what might be their perspective.

Given the stark difference in how either of us choose to learn or communicate, seems I just don't have the patience or concern to respond to much of your saucy prodding.

Another clue as to what might have been in the minds of the 12 apostles in the days following the resurrection of Christ, is this verse: Matthew 19 [27] Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? [28] And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Sarcasm gotten you far in life, has it?

and I yours... given how you repeatedly lie about what I post, and twist what I say. Evidently it's impossible for you (an investigative reporter ?) to see it from my perspective. Yet, you continually get bent out of shape when I call you on it., as if you're perfect and never do the very thing you persistently accuse me of doing. For instance, here a sampling of spin from your last exhale: You know I never said that. Not that you said I did, but that is what is implied. That's spin. Or twist. Call it whatever you want. That's about as close to a lie as it gets. In fact, I said nearly the opposite. That (possibly by design) there was no evidence for believing it, but that there were reasons. Furthermore, I plainly stated that in spite of this lack of evidence, "This doesn't mean that there is absolutely nothing left to evaluate for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not something (i.e., the resurrection) happened." But you set about to put your own spin on that earlier post (somewhere on page 10) to make it look like I was trying to present "non-evidence" as evidence. So it appears that you have a difficult time comprehending the difference between what is deemed to be evidence and what all can, might, and/or does fall into the category of "reasons." More spin, and an (implied) lie. How so? By conveniently (probably intentionally) leaving a word or two - or even the entire context - (see below, in red) out of what I actually said. Furthermore, I actually don't care much about what does or doesn't motivate you, so the only reason I might have for questioning or doubting your motives might be if I thought you were trying to conceal or mask them. Maybe I'm missing something from an earlier post, but quite frankly, I just don't recall that being the case anywhere in this thread, and I don't know why you're so insistent on saying I did question your motives. To put it bluntly, they seem rather obvious. Care to explain exactly what "evidence that doesn't come by the senses" it is that you think I've talked about or tried to present here as evidence? Probably not. So, Ignore or spin this however you want, it won't change what it actually says: Keep on playing games with what I've said and claim you don't twist or spin them into something else if you want... but don't expect me not to call you on it.

I did look at it, as plainly stated in my last post.

Seems you missed my point. There was no need to do much more than glance at his work to gather you (and others here) see it (the resurrection) as being nothing more than a myth. However, I see it from a far different perspective. (And it's not as if I'm completely ignorant of psychology. For a time, I eyed psychiatry as a prospective career.)

I have absolutely no doubt that there are a great many very reasonable, logically put together, and highly intelligent reasons not to believe, Raf. In fact, aside from the one mentioned below (bold letters - obviously my emphasis), I suppose it would be rather difficult for anyone to make much of kind of sense of it (or case for it.) So, if you want to throw out scripture in its entirety, well... seems you simply (and more honestly) have virtually nothing left to think through or ponder. The door is shut. Acts 17 [11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. [12] Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

So, you want everyone to believe he was just plain stupid? I guess not. However, you must have overlooked part of my previous post. Here it is again (in case you missed it): However, evidently most (or all) that have posted here think pretty much the same of it (i.e., don't believe it did happen, and thinks anyone who believes it did was either tricked or fooled into it, or simply is a fool.)

Ah, but if there's "many gods", it seems straight forward and easy enough to think there would be unique differences (and forms of worship) for various locations and cultures around the world. And, as the story goes (before Noah), it didn't work out so well when God was (more or less) accessible to all the world. So, when it started going south again (insert: the tower of Babel, etc.), God apparently decided to try something different in calling out Abraham, and in separating Israel from all other nations.

The intent was not to single him out as "a model of intelligence," but rather, to show that there's evidently something other than mere intelligence - or a lack of it - involved.

So is the parting of the Red Sea (and most any other of the signs, miracles, and wonders written in the scriptures.) Though it's a parable, it seems there's an inherent truth written in Luke 16:29-31.

Seems you're totaling ignoring the possibility of differing gods, with differing intentions and purposes.

I asked to see how you (or others here) might actually think of it or answer, not merely to hear or read of something elsewhere. However, evidently most (or all) that have posted here think pretty much the same of it (i.e., don't believe it did happen, and thinks anyone who believes it did was either tricked or fooled into it, or simply is a fool.) Certainly doesn't flatter or say much for the intelligence of a supposed member of the Athenian judicial council, but what does that matter, eh?

Why did (and do) some (such as Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them) believe it?

If there were no belief in the resurrection, I don't see much reason why Christianity would have survived past the first century (if that that long, even.)