Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

TLC

Members
  • Posts

    1,302
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by TLC

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. Well, the simplest is that it simply wasn't part of the instructions given to them.
  4. 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.)
  5. 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.
  6. Strange... as my copy of the book has September 11. 3 BC.
  7. I disagree with 6BC, as I'm inclined to think his ministry was less than 2 years.
  8. 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.)
  9. 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...)
  10. 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.)
  11. 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.
  12. 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.)
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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...
  16. 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.
  17. There's no point in rounding third base if first base is nowhere in sight.
  18. The "evidence" you're propounding is nothing more than some other "intellectual's" interpretation of what's written. Apparently, because you decided to elevate their consortium of talent far above that of your own (or my) understanding of what is written, that is sufficient for you to determine and judge what is right and what is wrong. Some people see and hear what is written with their mind. Some people see and hear what is written with their heart. And some people (the majority, perhaps) do neither of the above.
  19. You're clueless. Not that I'm terribly surprised. Because I did read it, but disagreed with it.
  20. It was stated in words that, evidently, must have escaped you. (Nothing too surprising about that though, eh?)
  21. There certainly aren't many that claim, as a wise masterbuilder, to have laid the foundation, and then cautioned how others were to build thereon. Sure seems easy enough (relatively speaking) to build things from (or on top of) scripture... but quite fankly, I just don't see (nor do I believe) that it's possible to build thereon (as God intended) without the illumination of the holy spirit's working from within the mind and heart. So regardless of who anyone thinks did or didn't write certain Pauline Epistles, undoubtedly the acid test is how good or sound a foundation is revealed with them. Unless viewed in the right light, great masterpieces can go unnoticed and/or unappreciated. The point being, it's not the character of the writer, nor diligent and careful textual criticism that will ever shed the right light on what is most important in scripture.
  22. Some might think and/or agree with that. But I don't... http://www.maxddl.org/Luke - Gentile or a Jew.pdf
  23. My posts are (obviously) of no use or benefit to you, but I trust others that might read here can see through your insidious spin on them.
  24. I disagree, not merely because there is no clear time table set forth for it, but for all of the following: Where was Paul first direct to, to receive his instructions? Damascus. Acts 22:10, and then 14-16. Did Paul go to Jerusalem after his conversion and visit to Damascus? Yes. Acts 9:26. When was it? Well, it just doesn't say. Might have been days, or it could possibly have been three years. In either case, it was well after verse 22.... as if Paul needed to learn anything about who Christ was !!! Was it to "see the apostles" and/or learn from them? No. It doesn't actually say that. He went there to ""join himself to the disciples" (Acts 9:26) and to testify to fellow Jews (Acts 22:17-20.) Who brought him to the apostles while he was there? Barnabas. Acts 9:27. (There no indication here that Paul had any specific need or interest in seeing them.) Did he ask questions of the apostles, to learn of or from them? No, there's no mention or indication of that. Then, what was discussed with the apostles concerning Paul while he was there? Evidently Barnabas did all (or most of) the talking. Acts 9:27. Then, what was Paul doing while he was there in Jerusalem (shortly after his conversion)? Disputing the Grecians. Acts 9:29. Considering that Galatians does speak of Paul going there 3 years after his conversion and his time in Arabia to see Peter (but not the other apostles), it does seem possible that the above all happened prior to his time spent in Arabia. Galatians is focused on how or where he learned this "gospel of Christ," and as none of it was learned in Jerusalem from the other apostles, and it only surfaced AFTER his time in Arabia (it was NOT preached in Damascus in the early few days immediately after his conversion), it is not surprising that the message to the Galatians skips straight to how and where this gospel of grace was first introduced to Paul (i.e., whilst he was in Arabia. Quite likely, on or near the same mountain Moses received the law... but that - of course - is speculative.) Consequently, I see nothing in Galatians that directly contradicts any of what is written in Acts.
×
×
  • Create New...