TLC

Probably because the baptism took place shortly before his birthday (Sept. 11), call it the summer of 26 AD (and probably less than six months into John the Baptist's ministry.) The obvious overlap in ministries would most likely put John the Baptist's death sometime in 27AD, and the crucifixion early in 28AD.

not true, Raf. But I haven't the time or resources at the moment to look it up. It's out there, though.

Trying to make it easy for me, Raf? Plug September 11, 3 BC as the birthdate, and voila!... "about 30" works just fine. And, as for being a lamb of the first year, my understanding is that within sheep herding culture, a male lamb is typically referred to as being "of the first year" up until it sires offspring.

Okay, evidently I wasn't clear enough and a better explanation is needed as to what I think they might have viewed their mission as. First and foremost, they very plainly directed all of their effort and energies towards moving the "whole house of Israel" towards repentance and acceptance of Christ as the Messiah. Thus, it appears that they understood this (acceptance by all of Israel) to be a prerequisite before any outreach should be done to the other nations of the world. Their gospel message was, in essence, that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, repent and be baptized in his name. There's actually no "release from the law" in and of itself in that message, nor would there be. It's "keep my commandments" and do good... but if you mess up and don't, well, there's always confession and forgiveness. So, seems it might have meant to the 12 apostles, (1) get all of Israel on board with the program first, after which, (2) Christ could/would return, and then (3) become a nation of priests to all other nations of the world. At least, that's how it looks like it was presented in the old testament scriptures. And, considering their culture, knowledge and intimacy with the scriptures, I don't see much reason to think that's not how they understood that their mission.

It's not a new idea that all of Israel would be (or could have become) a nation of priests (to the rest of the world.) Again, the issue becomes one of opportunity or timing. And, as the record in Acts appears to confirm... it didn't happened. (Hasn't yet, anyways.)

I'm not a history teacher, Raf. But, feel free to check it out yourself, if you're so inclined. I'm not one to just "make .... up."

Granted, the verse is there (didn't mean to say the entire verse wasn't), but Eusebius does (debatably) quote a shorten version of it. But whether it is or isn't isn't the issue. It's the timing of it, which gets into a far different take on these verses (the couple in Matt, Luke, and I think Mark may have one as well) than has been touched upon at this point. In short, I think the fulfillment of which is yet to come.

Perhaps there is simply an incontrovertible difference that resides within "what all" is and/or isn't factored into said evaluation. All that you seem to be willing to include or accept into your evaluation of the question (did Jesus rise from the dead?), is scientific or material (i.e., physical) evidence directly associated with or touching the living Christ. Now, I do think that this was (to some degree) available to those in the early part of the book of Acts, as this would align with what is written in scripture on how God typically dealt with Israel in "signs, miracles, and wonders" (most notably starting with Moses.) Hence, it is written, that Israel required (and sought after) a sign. While this sort of evidence may have been particularly relevant in that day, not only do I think that such evidence doesn't exist today, but that it would work against what is purposed and intended for our day and time. The means of approach that God used with Israel (signs, miracles, wonders, etc.) may have worked temporarily... but, at least thus far, seems to have been rather weak or ineffective at establishing any sort long term or lasting results. Besides, why else would Christ ascend into (or through, if you prefer) the heavens and be removed from the sight of all men? 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. It does, however, require a shift in focus away from only the kind of evidence referred to in the previous paragraph. The aforementioned evidence requires a "zooming in" on the bits and pieces. Perhaps the other requires more of a "zooming out," and a more intensive consideration of the whole of life... the reason for it, etc. It's not the "abandonment of logic" which you seem inclined to suppose, but rather, it's a very different approach to evaluating the issue, and ascertaining whether or not it happened.

Seriously? Just how different might that be from this? Furthermore, I'm curious if (or how) you might be able to better explain what this is, or how it works: Because, aside from that part of my last post that you say is a "completely different" issue or question... seems I'm at a bit of a loss to see how you think it might (or does) work. From Hebrews 11:1? Not seen with your physical eyes? Yet, we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses... How does that work?

Well, the simplest is that it simply wasn't part of the instructions given to them.

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. (As you are likely already aware that Matthew 28:19 probably wasn't in the earlier manuscripts.)

That would only be true if Luke were referring to the 15th year of Tiberius in the same way as the Romans did on the Julian calendar (January 1 to January 1), starting at the first year he reigned alone. However, when using the Judean method of reckoning civil years (from Tishri 1 to Tishri 1), the 1st year of Tiberius would have started with his co-reign with Augustus, which was somewhere between 12 and 13 AD.

Strange... as my copy of the book has September 11. 3 BC.

I disagree with 6BC, as I'm inclined to think his ministry was less than 2 years.

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.)

Been a while since I've read up on this, but it seems I recall the most reasonable year of the crucifixion being 28AD. Guess I'll have to go back and check some sources (which seemed pretty thorough at the time...)

No. Of course, if I actually knew who you might be referring to (I'd need a far better clue than mere initials) and they were at HQ or in an earlier corps back in the day, there's always the possibility that I knew them from back then. But certainly not since then. And aside from it being a terribly clumsy (if not bass ackward) way to refer to what I've said previously on this thread, at least it isn't an accusation of ignoring facts (which I see as a step in a more positive direction.) Not sure it can be easily done, but as mentioned previously, perhaps there's another way to communicate the thought using the analogy of an autostereogram, or hologram...(if/when I have time.) All the material facts in the world, no matter how carefully taken apart, analyzed, put together or studied will never reveal what might be known or revealed by (or through) them with the right light (aka, spiritual perspective.)

Care to try again... genius?

Doesn't surprise me that what you claim it smells like isn't how it might smell to someone else. And I didn't write 2Cor.2:15-16.

Taken out of context (which you're so easily inclined towards with certain things I write, such as this) typically does facilitate "another way to read" most things. In case you forgot (or chose to ignore), it started here: Then went here: Here: And here: Note the bolded line. Seems you missed the word (or the meaning) of augmented. Perhaps there's another way to depict the difference which, if I have time, will attempt to describe. What must be noted, however, is that the reality I hold to doesn't (as you purport, and would have others believe) simply ignore physical evidence. (And it's not as if this is the first time I've pointed this out.) Furthermore, you do realize that I never said that God deliberately made it harder for smart people to be saved, don't you? What I said or alluded to, was that He didn't make it easier for them. And the reason for it stems all the way back to the choice that Adam made (which I have no time, nor good reason, to delve into further - especially on this forum.)

There's difference between merely being intelligent, and being part of the intelligentsia described in my previous post, which evidently you have either failed or refused to recognize.

Contrary to your perverted opinion, I don't consider or call believers (in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ) stupid. They do, however, have the spirit of Christ as means to provide additional information... which is something you incessantly equate to stupidity.

no chit, Sherlock. I suppose you've never misspoke or didn't bother to proofread something before posting because you were in a hurry. And yes, putting intellectual in quotes was quite intentional, not as a way to denigrate his education as much as it was to categorically include him in the intelligentsia that has been at work since olden times to effectually dethrone the spirit and obfuscate the simplicity and love of the truth in so many of lesser mental acumen. It is an affront to me, as you incessantly continue to twist and distort - or more bluntly, to outright lie about - what I have previously stated. But, you do whatever you want here Raf. I don't have the time or concern to contend with your (or a few others here) inability to grasp another perspective on the matter...

go the foolish, accusatory, ad hominem rout all you want, Raf. the fact is that you actually know incredibly little about me, my background, my educational experience, my intelligence quotient, my life or my heart.

There's no point in rounding third base if first base is nowhere in sight.