TLC

23 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Paints a picture where?

The ceiling of Notre Dame.

11 hours ago, waysider said:

However, now that we have exhaustively examined the Way version of speaking in tongues and determined it to be fraudulent, where does that leave us with this concept of enhanced spiritual understanding?

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?

15 hours ago, Rocky said:

So, even when I ask you for clarification, you take issue with it? Asking for clarification, in the form of "is this what you mean... ?" is now "spin?"

Oh, heck no. I don't think you're crazy.   I think you're needlessly defensive and paranoid.

So, how would YOU describe the process of "ascertaining spiritual information?" 

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. 

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 8:20 AM, TLC said:

In a manner of speaking (perhaps), it paints a picture.

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?

2 hours ago, Rocky said:

If your standard/understanding of communication was even close to correct, I would have to say that you intentionally misunderstood.

However, it isn't the correct standard. The correct response from you would be to ask for clarification, as in, "is this what you meant?"

Because you didn't, that is probably why to you my response to you didn't make sense.

My phrase "thought that pops into his/her head" isn't about the devil. It's about how the human mind operates. So, I have to ask for clarification. Are you saying that because you don't associate thoughts in a person's head with how the devil operates, you assume or suppose that when you get a thought that pops (appears, or however you'd like to characterize it) into your head, it must be from God?

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."

5 hours ago, Raf said:

P.S. To TLC:

I have twisted NOTHING and I am sick of you LYING about that. You are NOT entitled to LIE about other posters, so STOP LYING.

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.

5 hours ago, Raf said:

I for one don't care one whit about what TLC might see or think on the matter.  I only care about the actual quality of the argument and contribution to the discussion.

Really? Then why post this:

On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 10:14 AM, Raf said:

And you're so butthurt about having an atheist point out such an obvious verse that you would rather deny Jesus said it than admit you were wrong.

Probably a good thing I didn't see this:

5 hours ago, Raf said:

[The bulk of this post was deleted as soon as I realized it was off topic. The following replaces what I originally wrote. If you saw what I originally wrote: I stand by it. But it's off topic.]

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. 

5 hours ago, Raf said:

Seems to me that if the apostles had done what Jesus told them to do, he would not have needed to commission Paul to do something as specific as the very thing he told the 12 to do.

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.  

5 hours ago, Raf said:

That is an explanation that is completely consistent with what the Bible teaches on every level. It does not insert an extraneous subtext of "first Israel, then etc. It's really not even a little complicated. This is what the Bible shows and tells.

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."

5 hours ago, TLC said:

21 hours ago, Rocky said:

By definition, the Judeo-Christian creation story and the surrounding stories (as set forth in The Bible as we know it) has as a major theme, right from the start, deception by a spiritual entity.

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.     

15 hours ago, Rocky said:

Wow! No matter how much anyone asks you for clarification of what you say in any given comment, the only response you seem to ever give is that the reader so asking is willfully refusing to get your point. And when you say so, you usually have some "arrogant meanness" in your response. So, how do you get off claiming anyone else is doing the projecting?

Further, when you're faced with questions you seem to not know how to answer, you make statements like you end that comment with. Really, dude!

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

15 hours ago, Rocky said:

However, to give any credence to what you present (in bold, above), how do you propose to ascertain the veracity of said information received by alluded to certain invisible realities?

In a manner of speaking (perhaps), it paints a picture.

15 hours ago, Rocky said:

By definition, the Judeo-Christian creation story and the surrounding stories (as set forth in The Bible as we know it) has as a major theme, right from the start, deception by a spiritual entity.

By whose definition?  That may be one that you think and/or accept, but I surely don't.

15 hours ago, Rocky said:

So, how would one discern whether any given thought that pops into his/her head as being from the right source?

Twice now you've tried to insert and bring some (rather kinky) concept of (personal) "revelation" to the forefront, as if it were the key (or at least, essential) to anything I've said.  And it's not.

15 hours ago, Rocky said:

Didn't Jesus himself even have to cope with that dilemma?

What sort of ridiculous question is that?  Oh... ridiculous.  That was your point, I suppose.  To ridicule. 

16 hours ago, waysider said:

I'm going out on a limb here and assume that, by a *higher level of reasoning*, you're referring to revelation.

No, I wasn't.  However,  there doesn't appear to be much reason why that shouldn't (or wouldn't) be included, if it were given (rare as it might be.) 

On 4/17/2019 at 5:07 PM, DontWorryBeHappy said:

So, for the statement I quoted at the opening of this post to even be put forth as a meaningful, substantive, or rational topic for discussion or consideration is, imho, absurdly ludicrous.

How convenient for you to only quote part of the post, to make it appear as though those statements were something (anything) other than at attempt to clarify what Raf had said previously.  Par for the course, I suppose.  Aside from that, however, I don't disagree with or object to most of the rest of your post, other than to note that the ability to "think/reason at a higher level" alludes to doing so in a manner that can (or at least, might) take into consideration the possibility that there certain (invisible) realities that are only possible to ascertain through the use of reasoning at a higher level!

Clearly you don't care to think about this from another perspective, nor do you know what motivates me... but why bother projecting (apparently your own) arrogant meanness onto me?  

Furthermore, given your proclivity towards trying to twist what I say into a knot, there's not a doubt in my mind that you do much the same with scripture.

It appears by the title of this thread that it would primarily contain or concern itself with what Paul is presumed to have written.  With that in mind, I had previously posted (on 7/12/2018 at 1:25 AM) that before his death Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision, as were the 12 apostles.  The point being, the gospel that they were given and instructed to promote, was not the same gospel that was given to and promoted by Paul (who was very clearly and plainly called out as *the* apostle to the Gentiles.) Yet, instead of considering whether or not *the gospel* (the focal point of the directive) that was given the 12 preached ever changed or was different from that which was given to Paul,  you determined to steer it entirely and solely towards who it was applicable to. Which, btw, I was quick to point out here:

On 4/9/2019 at 6:04 PM, TLC said:

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.)  

But note your own stedfast determination to (as noted above) quickly steer it entirely and solely (aka, twisting) back towards who it was applicable to:

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.

So, don't play like or pretend that you don't ever twist things, as plainly you do (and then brag about how good you are, as you "throw up your hands up trying to reason with them.")

There's more than ample addition scriptural evidence that illustrates significant differences between the gospel of the Kingdom (which the 12 promoted) and the gospel of grace (which was first given to the apostle Paul), which I have little time nor concern for discussing any further here (with the likes of you.)

1 minute ago, waysider said:

Maybe i misunderstood your meaning. You said something to the effect of never hearing that inerrancy is the lynchpin. What I demonstrated is that if you ever sat through PFAL you must have been bombarded with the general concept. So, yes, I think my comment is relevant to the discussion.

The point was simply that I haven't previously associated the word "lynchpin" with the infallibility of anything, much less to my personal belief in, and foundation in, the resurrection of Christ (which was established well before any exposure to twi or pfal.)   Furthermore, prior to pfal, I was also already well aware of the canonization of the Bible, and the differences between what is written on the pages of a book and a personal relationship with the Lord.  So, if you think that vpw's "chuck the whole thing out the window" statement had much of an impact or effect on my thinking at the time (or since then)... well then, it does indeed seem you'd be mistaken.

1 hour ago, waysider said:

Surely you jest. This was the main thrust of the first four sessions of PFAL. "If one section doesn't fit, the whole thing falls apart." (or something to that effect)

Inerrancy was the single most critical factor in making Way theology congruent.

 

And in other news, it's just been discovered that water is wet.

Is this not a doctrinal forum, regardless of what was or wasn't in pfal (which itself was a far cry from the "rightly divided" word of truth.)

Not fooling anyone, Raf.  And I'm sure we'll each end [rewarded] appropriately.    

18 hours ago, Raf said:

If inerrancy is the lynchpin of your faith,...

Never heard of it being the "lynchpin" of anything, much less thought it.  

18 hours ago, Raf said:

...you will be joining me in the ranks of unbelievers very soon.

Impossible. For starters, I'm well aware of the correlation, and the difference, between the Bible and the Word of God (something which you appear to have little to no regard or concern for.)  Yes, I plainly (and perhaps unfairly) shortcut the steps between 1 and 3.  Still, there is a fundamental difference in attitude that affects our approach to what is written in the Bible.  Some will direct their focus on finding a problem and why it can't be resolved, while others choose to remain focused on finding an answer.   Mistaking what the Bible is (and isn't) is a roadblock that many just never seem to be able to really overcome.

Step 1:

1 hour ago, Raf said:

If you just accept the fact that gospels can contradict each other, all the problems created by those contradictions disappear.

Step 2:

There is no scripture, as scripture cannot be broken. (John 10:35.)

Step 3:

There is no God.  

NFW.

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 12:58 PM, Raf said:

Spiritual insight is literally the opposite of evidence.

Belittling actual evidence with unnecessary qualifiers like "material" or "senses" betrays a lack of confidence in the non-evidence being asserted as equally valuable.

Evidence is evidence. If God is telling you something, prove it. Give me the number (which I have already disclosed to another poster so I can't pretend you were wrong if you are right).

Nobody in the initial posts or videos on this thread claimed the resurrection happened because God said so. All point to evidence, failing to recognize the embarrassing flaws in Luke and Acts.

Defend Luke! Defend the gospel writers! But "spiritual insight" is a chicken-.... excuse for recognizing the evidence opposes your position.

God told me you're full of .....

Now, based on the evidence, who's right?

 

Redirect and define things however you want, Raf.  Doesn't make you or what you say right, and it sure doesn't indicate that you comprehend much of anything that I've said on the matter.   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. 

Not all evidence is "black or white," and not all evidence is conclusive.  Neither is all evidence always obvious, or "verifiable."  Personal witness and testimonies are often part of the evidence presented in any courtroom of law, where a jury is used to render a verdict on what the truth is.  In short, your huffing and puffing here about certain qualifiers and that "evidence is evidence" really means nothing, other than you don't like the qualifiers.  However, right from the get go you made it abundantly clear that you are tossing out and will nullify the evidence and testimony of scripture.  So, aside from that, I likewise plainly stated that considered from a material (physical senses only) perspective, there isn't going to be any of the kind of evidence that you were looking for. 

However, there can be (and are) reasons (transcending that which is written in scripture) for arriving at (i.e., ascertaining) a belief in (the truth of) the resurrection of Christ from the dead, that require an individual to "render a verdict."  And even though you said that "Zooming in" and "zooming out" is fair, apparently you still either: (1) have no idea what I might have been referring to, or (2) have no idea how to do it as it relates to this particular issue.  But, go ahead and plod along with your fun here.  What you think of me or my view on the matter isn't going to change any.     

2 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

He said nothing about them "stopping."    If the law changed in the mid 80s, none of us heard that twi changed to comply.  In fact, it was only when lawyers were digging through twi due to lawsuits brought against twi that lawyers saw lots of practices that may have been illegal and were definitely questionable, and told twi to change.  With them possibly having to go to court, their illegal and immoral practices would have offered a wealth of riches for the prosecuting attorney to turn over, and legal followups would probably have been the death knell to twi's finances- which would have been the end of twi entirely.

The doubt was on when they started.  I think it was a good decade after you think it started. Rocky might agree.

Personal tax records indicate otherwise.

9 hours ago, Rocky said:

I doubt it.

So, you think they defied the IRS, stopped paying it, and have broken the law? 

1 hour ago, WordWolf said:

Right now, they actually pay the minimum required by law. 

Probably have been, since 1984 (when the law changed.)

9 hours ago, Raf said:

Jesus could look the 12 right in the eye and say Make disciples of all nations and STILL we have to twist ourselves into knots over whether the 12 were ever commissioned to preach the gospel to all the nations.

Wow.

And people wonder why I throw my hands up trying to reason with them.

Yeah, isn't it wonderful that you're so much sharper and clearly understand the message so much better than those apostles that were brought up in the culture and thinking of that day and time.  Or, maybe you prefer to think they just chose to be disobedient and not carry it out.

Oh, but that's right.... I almost forgot.   You don''t believe any of that really happened anyways... 

13 hours ago, Raf said:

Based on Matthew 28:19, there is no reason for them to have accepted this framework if they had ears. He said to them to go and make disciples of all the nations. They would have had to go through some quite sophisticated gymnastics to go from a clear instruction like that to "ok, first Israel, then Christ comes back, THEN the rest of the world." 

You can get Israel first out of Luke, but not Matthew. And in neither case does Christ's return PRECEDE preaching to the gentiles.

Well, it seems that Zechariah 8 alludes to the coming (or return) of Christ first, and the instructions that were given to the apostles prior to this were unmistakably clear ( see Matt. 10:5, for example.)  However, given that I'm also aware of the possibility that the 144 thousand (of Rev. 7:4) might be sent to all the nations.  So, the order of it is a bit uncertain.  Still seems, Israel first, either way. 

How does your brain know for sure where any thought or sensation comes from?

13 minutes ago, Raf said:

I repeat that which is not refuted but merely repeated:

One you accept tht which is unprovable as true, nothing is unprovable.

What difference is there (in your thinking), if there is any, between that and either of the two statements below (which also, may or may not mean the same thing to you)?

Once you accept that which is unproveable as true, anything can be accepted as true.
Once you accept that which is unproveable as true, anything can be believed.