TLC
-
Posts
1,311 -
Joined
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by TLC
-
-
1 hour ago, Raf said:
"Your view of it" is incompatible with scripture.
Allow me to correct that for you. My view of it is incompatible with your (apparently limited) scope and/or comprehension of scripture.
1 hour ago, Raf said:The scripture you cited is irrelevant to the question you asked.
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.
1 hour ago, Raf said:For some reason you seem incapable of letting it go.
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
On 4/9/2019 at 6:04 PM, TLC said:On 4/9/2019 at 2:51 PM, Raf said:Matthew 28:19.
I'll be in my trailer.
Acts 1: 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
That is, at LEAST, an implication.
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.)
On 4/10/2019 at 3:46 AM, TLC said:On 4/9/2019 at 8:14 PM, Raf said:Preach the gospel to all nations...
You don't see where that includes gentiles.
For real.
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.
-
16 minutes ago, Raf said:
Because there is no scripture to indicate otherwise
Sure there is. But that would be off topic from what seems to be the originator's intent of this thread.
-
4 minutes ago, Raf said:
I'm literally doing nothing other than quoting scripture, while you're stammering but, but, but, but
You asked a question. I am QUOTING THE BIBLE'S ANSWER.
This is KILLING you, isn't it?
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.
-
1 hour ago, WordWolf said:
Those who pushed their way to the titles, IMHO, are in it for the titles.
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.)
-
On 5/5/2019 at 6:07 PM, Raf said:
He seems to be the only apostle who took that instruction seriously.
Why suppose that the instructions given to Paul were exactly the same as what was given others previously?
-
On 5/5/2019 at 11:50 AM, Raf said:
You really need to get back on topic. You asked a question. The Bible answered it. Accept the Bible's answer, or admit that you don't believe the book any more than I do.
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.
-
On 5/3/2019 at 4:59 PM, Raf said:
I said the apostles would have to be dumb as a brick to take a comment Jesus made that had nothing to do with preaching the gospel and apply it to undermine his extremely clear instruction to preach the gospel to every creature and make disciples of all the nations.
And they would have to be that stupid.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
21 hours ago, Rocky said:
Dude, you can make those statements, but they lack integrity. Whenever (yes, every time) anyone asks for clarification, you state they are twisting or spinning your words, as opposed to you trying to clarify so the reader might possibly come closer to understanding your intended message.
Further, when a reader responds with what s/he does understand you to have intended to mean, you jump on them for intentionally misunderstanding... or "playing games with what I've said..." (rather than, "sorry, that's not what I meant. Let me see if I can present it another way that might make more sense to you")
One seems to only be able to reasonably deduce that you are either toying with people here or are more dense than the densest diamond that's ever been found.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. -
14 hours ago, Rocky said:
I am totally in AWE of your intellectual prowess.
Nevertheless, you may have had a very hard time in fields related to psychology or psychiatry given your apparent difficulty with the communication process (i.e. listening skills).Sarcasm gotten you far in life, has it?
-
On 4/25/2019 at 6:29 PM, Raf said:
you know, i am sick and tired of your misreprentations.
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:
6 hours ago, Raf said:Literally not one person here used Campbell's work as the basis for the conclusion that the resurrection is a myth. Not one.
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.
6 hours ago, Raf said:TLC's rebuttals called for accepting, as evidence, that which cannot be discerned from the senses.
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."
6 hours ago, Raf said:TLC also questioned my motives for disputing the gospel and scriptural accounts [ie, I just want to toss out scripture].
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.
On 4/25/2019 at 5:50 PM, TLC said: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.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.
6 hours ago, Raf said:The problem with evidence that doesn't come by the senses is that there's no way to test it or even confirm its existence.
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:
On 4/10/2019 at 8:20 AM, TLC said:Frankly, it was so ridiculous to me that anyone would say or might think that the "proof" (or evidence, if you prefer) they have for the resurrection is obtained by revelation (which was plainly alluded to), that I'm inclined to think your own chosen verbiage (i.e., "spiritual insight") and view of it probably isn't much different.
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.
-
12 hours ago, waysider said:
Then again, maybe it's you who missed my point. If you had taken a few minutes to look at what I suggested you would have seen that Campbell's work is not explicitly about Jesus or any other specific narrative.It's about Man's need to give meaning to the seemingly unexplainable.
I did look at it, as plainly stated in my last post.
-
On 4/25/2019 at 8:47 PM, waysider said:
Campbell goes into great detail, explaining what it is that people are seeking, as well as the whys and hows. Trying to summarize it with a few posts on this thread would do great injustice to him and his work. Are you not at least interested enough to look at Campbell's work yourself and offer a personal observation?
edit: Youtube has dozens, maybe hundreds of clips with Campbell. Some are as short as 3-4 minutes. The ones with Bill Moyer are especially good.
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. -
13 minutes ago, Raf said:
Right. There was something other than intelligence at work there. We actually agree on that. Except you JUST SAID...
You seriously need to make up your mind if you're defending his intelligence or not.
So to be clear: it doesn't take intelligence to be faithful, nor does it take intelligence to disbelieve. You can be intelligent and hold either position. Who said otherwise?
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.)
-
16 minutes ago, Raf said:
No, that is a false assertion.
If there were multiple gods with multiple intents and purposes, it does not follow logically that each one would reveal himself to one and only one culture.
If Yahweh existed, quite frankly, it makes no sense that no other culture anywhere on earth heard of him except for those that developed in the middle east. It doesn't matter if Satan is planting stories of false gods all over the place to confuse things: Yahweh would still have the ability to reveal himself to a culture that had no prior contact with Israel.
What you're doing is taking what I said and coming up with a tangential reason there would be other gods without addressing the central point of my comment, which is that no two cultures have independently developed the same God. It doesn't matter if 5,000 cultures develop 5,000 different gods. The bizarre thing is that no two came up with the same one. A god who EXISTS could have done that easily.
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.
-
7 minutes ago, Raf said:
What about all the members of the council who called B.S.?
You can't cite him as a model of intelligence and ignore all the other intelligent people who said no! That's just dishonest.
So you have a member of the Athenian judicial council who believed Paul, and how many member of the council did not buy it? How many said this is nonsense? Why does one person's acceptance outweigh everyone else's judgment that this was bunk?
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.
-
On 4/24/2019 at 12:20 PM, Raf said:
The funny thing is, any one of those things is more likely than a dead man getting up three days later.
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.
-
On 4/24/2019 at 10:17 AM, Raf said:
I've often said that if people did not come up with gods, then the same gods, actually existing, would have had the power to make themselves known to multiple groups of people.
Seems you're totaling ignoring the possibility of differing gods, with differing intentions and purposes.
-
On 4/23/2019 at 9:16 PM, waysider said:
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc.
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?
-
1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:
Sure. But there was belief.
Why did (and do) some (such as Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them) believe it?
-
6 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:
Is the resurrection itself historically significant event? It probably didn't actually happen. So no, there's no evidence, and it's not historically significant.
Christianity itself majorly influenced history, or events in history. Christianity itself would be historically significant.
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.)
Thus Saith Paul
in Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith
Posted
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?