TLC

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.)

The ceiling of Notre Dame.

Given I'm not part of the "we" in your statement, I don't have any sort of answer to such a question other than the most obvious. IF it is indeed fraudulent for a particular individual, why would it be expected to enhance an understanding anything, much less that which is spiritual?

Depending on what or how something is asked, yes, it can be... even as yours is. Take, for example, your last question... as I didn't write or speak of "ascertaining spiritual information" (as though it were just an extra piece of the puzzle,) yet you put it in quotes as though it were something which I definitely said, or at least meant (apparently as another attempt to draw or squeeze some sort of missing "revelation" into the equation). What else would you call it, if not spin? Furthermore, I've already described what I did say (about ascertaining spiritual realities) in another way, which evidently you seemed to have missed or chose to ignore. So, given we obviously don't see the same thing when looking at the paint, you want me to describe... what? What you can't or don't see?

Frankly, it sounds to me like you prefer talking in circles, and we are on such different wavelengths I can't really follow the way you evidently must think. So you probably think I'm crazy (but yeah... I think you're crazy.) But to answer your question (which certainly has an appearance of trying to put words in my mouth), no... and I'm not the one that first mentioned or brought up anything about "thoughts" popping up or appearing in your head. You did. For what purpose or reason, I'm still at a loss to see. Looks to me like an effort to spin something I might have posted previously into something called "revelation."

There are MANY ways to twist things, Raf, not all of which are necessarily intentional. And, to a certain extent, I suppose that we are all guilty of it at one time or another (and I'm no saint)... so why be so upset and claim that somehow you're so perfect that you never do? More than once you've jumped to conclusions or "put words in my mouth" in an effort to get your point across or validate your view simply by misstating or misrepresenting mine. Call it whatever you want, but it appears to me to be no different than twisting. Perhaps you'd prefer calling it spin. Some number of news media folk are real pros at it. So good, in fact, a fair number of people don't (maybe can't) recognize it for what it is. Really? Then why post this: Probably a good thing I didn't see this: But, if you really did care to discuss it (see below) more openly (I.e. intelligently), without putting the typical derogatory spin on my posts (kindly let me know if that's possible, and you'd agree not to), it's not some quick and easy 15 minute deal. Simply put, I'm not persuaded that they didn't (at least, try to) do what they were told to do. Not only does Luke (24:47) speak of it beginning at Jerusalem, Peter calls upon "all the house of Israel" to know in Acts 2:36 and for "every one" [all the house of Israel] to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Peter rather plainly states in Acts 3:25 that it was in Abraham's seed that all the kindreds of the earth be blessed, and follows that up by telling "Ye men of Israel" (see verse 12) that the blessing is "unto you first," in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. However, I could agree that had "all the house of Israel" repented and been baptized (as mentioned above), there would have been no need to commission Paul to do what he did. No, Raf. That's your take on it. And regardless of who or where all you might or might not be taking it from, it doesn't exactly fit with all other scripture. But to set if forth as the be all, end all, "this is what the Bible shows and tells" is, in so many words, your "spin"on it (aka, this is how every other reasonable and logically thinking person surely sees it.) Ever try to put yourself in their shoes, Raf? Maybe not. But, if you were there, immersed in their long, deeply religious background and culture... generation after generation of tradition, having such great respect for the scriptures and the prophets of old, that foretold of a great Messiah (like unto Moses) that would one day deliver the nation of Israel from its enemies, and reign as their king, to restore it (the nation of Israel) to its former glory among all the nations of the earth... where it (Israel) was not the tail, but the head, above all other nations on earth... perhaps it wouldn't be so strange to you to think that maybe the gospel of the kingdom message was intended for "all the house of Israel" first. And in light of that, perhaps the reason for calling out Paul would be seen more, not as a failure of the 12 apostles to follow instructions, but rather, as the failure of "all the house of Israel" to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ... which, by the way, was clearly established in Acts 7, with the high priest and council of Israel's complete and utter rejection of Stephen's powerful testimony. Furthermore, to what does Paul attribute salvation coming unto the Gentiles? Not the failure of the 12 apostles. No, it was the failure of Israel. (see Romans 11.) What failure? In that they rejected and crucified Jesus Christ? That's part of it, yes. But not the whole of it. Why exclude the nation's failure to recognize the mistake, and simply repent and be baptized in his name (even as the 3000 did on the day of Pentecost)? Had the nation, as a whole, done so, would it not have to be said in Romans 11:11 that they stumbled (for sure, as they killed him), but did not fall? Yet, the nation (represented by the council and high priest) did fall, as noted in Acts 7. Hence, the introduction to Saul immediately thereafter. Not a coincidence, it seems. All of which begins to paint quite a different picture then what you've put forth as what the Bible "shows and tells."

By whose definition? That may be one that you think and/or accept, but I surely don't. Given where this thread is located, seems unclear to me exactly which "spiritual entity" you may have intended to refer to here... which is why I opposed it, as at first glance, it appeared as if it referred to God (and not the serpent.) And, your "thought that pops into his/her head" phrase simply isn't something that I associate every day with how the devil operates (even if it is.) Neither do I see that phrase as being appropriate or fitting with any recorded interaction between the devil and Jesus Christ. Consequently, your post doesn't actually make much sense.

Don't even pretend that you care one whit about what I might see or think on the matter.