TLC
-
Posts
1,319 -
Joined
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by TLC
-
-
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. -
33 minutes ago, Raf said:
Once you accept the unproveable as proof, nothing is unproveable.
It's quite twisted (of course)... but, not completely out in left field (from the post below.)
There's an obvious difference (or at least, should be obvious) between ascertaining whether something is real, and proving it is real.
Evidently your believing is bound to what can be proven. (Which is not at all uncommon, especially for those that tend more to their intellectual side.)
On 4/7/2019 at 10:12 AM, TLC said:On 3/12/2019 at 2:19 PM, TLC said:You do know and realize that this is the real crux of true (i.e., genuine) Christianity, don't you?
I've contended elsewhere on this site (I forget where, or in exactly what manner) that believing in the death and resurrection of Christ is (in this day and time) intrinsic to believing anything aside from or beyond what is (or can be) received and known only by our physical senses. In other words, it is what breaks the bondage to our physical senses of what can be believed. And, in light of that, there is presently no valid material "proof" of his resurrection... for if there were any, believing God would remain bound to the material reality of our senses.
This is why no one ever REALLY believes in the resurrection of Christ unless their heart is opened to it. And only when the inherent hardness of a man(or woman)'s heart is softened, does it ever allow room for it. Furthermore, I personally believe that a real softening of the heart starts with the recognition and acknowledgment of something written in Rom. 3:23. And when we "get" the reason (i.e., the heartfelt need) for our own redemption, verse 24 (of Rom. 3) springs to life within us... as it's understood why Christ is (and has to be) alive. Anything else no longer makes sense. Thus, leaving Rom. 3:23 (or its equivalent) out of the picture seems to stop anyone at the cross of Christ
-
2 hours ago, Raf said:
Convenient.
I will concede that it's a judgment call to argue that too much time passed between pre-AD 27 and AD 34 for the second marriage of Antipas to be the proximate cause of a war with Aretas. Personally, I think that's a LOT of time.
But again, we're in doctrinal and not in questioning faith, so I'm content here to find a framework that fits the available info.
Born Tishri 1 in the year we would call 3 BC.
Baptized as his 30th birthday approached in 26 AD. I'll do you one better: any reason to presume his baptism was in late summer or early fall? Because if he's baptized in the spring of 26, then there's a Passover in 26, a second Passover in 27 (the year John the Baptist dies) and a third in 28 when Jesus dies. That gives you a two year ministry and a crucifixion date of 28, in which preparation day is a Wednesday. That puts Thursday as the sabbath High Day and Saturday as the time of the resurrection, but Sunday as the first time anyone notices it.
I don't know, I'm just plugging in numbers
Possible, I suppose, as I don't recall there being that much difference noted between an earlier in the year vs. a late summer baptism (other than the water John would have had to stand in for extended periods probably would have been rather cold.) Although, I do find myself drawn more to the later summer, probably due to his "immediately" being driven into the wilderness after baptism and supposing that his ministry would have commence sooner rather than later thereafter. I've also considered the possibility that his ministry might have coincided with the "62 weeks" mentioned in Daniel (9:26), although I am quite aware of the common, and more significant, view of that being 62 weeks of years (in other words, 434 years.) I've also wondered (given the uncertainty it seems I've seen so many times in various Hebraic calendars) how close counting backwards 62 weeks from the crucifixion (in 28AD) might land near when Purim was celebrated that year (27AD) - though, it wasn't one of the more notable or mandated holidays. (Probably still misses by a week or two, but it was a curious thought a time or two to check it out.)
-
1 minute ago, Raf said:
"About 0" works precisely because it's imprecise. Why would the scripture be imprecise? Was he 30 or not? They get so specific with the age this person was when he begat that person, but when it comes to Jesus' age at the time of baptism, suddenly it's "meh, 30 more or less."
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.
-
1 hour ago, Raf said:
no one but no one counted that as the beginning of his reign.
not true, Raf. But I haven't the time or resources at the moment to look it up. It's out there, though.
-
1 hour ago, Raf said:
If Jesus is baptized in 26 AD (at the age of 27 or 28, which is under 30) and has a ministry of just over a year, then he is no longer a lamb of the first year. But whatever, that puts his execution at AD 28: Preparation day was a Wednesday. (Consistent with TWI, but you need to account for him being under 30).
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. -
4 minutes ago, Raf said:
You didn't ask if it happened. You asked: "If anyone can plainly show from scripture where this directive for the 12 ever changed, please do so."
The directive from the lips of Jesus himself to the 12 was to get out there and preach to everybody. Make disciples of all nations. That's just Bible.
True that they didn't do it. [Makes you wonder if it ever really happened. But that's another subforum].
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.
-
19 minutes ago, Raf said:
The shortened verse quoted by Eusebius, to the best of my memory, said "disciple all nations in my name," which is still a pretty blunt calling to preach to the gentiles.
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.)
-
2 hours ago, Raf said:
"Co-reign"?
We're just making .... up now?
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."
-
4 hours ago, Raf said:
There are literally zero manuscripts that do not contain Matthew 28:19. That said, you still did not address Luke.
Cannot preach the gospel to the ends of the Earth without including Gentiles. It is impossible.
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.
-
56 minutes ago, Raf said:
In order to ascertain whether something happened, you have to evaluate the evidence that it did.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Rocky said:
That's a completely different issue/question than we've been discussing.
Seriously? Just how different might that be from this?
On 4/7/2019 at 10:12 AM, TLC said:We simply do not share or have exactly the same basis for reality (i.e., what it true, or "real.")
Furthermore, I'm curious if (or how) you might be able to better explain what this is, or how it works:
6 hours ago, Rocky said:The issue at hand, as I have understood it, has been about "reaching into Daddy's cookie jar" for revelation in some real life situation.
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.
6 hours ago, Rocky said:Faith is about believing without getting to see evidence.
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?
-
7 hours ago, Raf said:
First, the nations are Gentiles by definition.
The disobedience of the 12 does not invalidate his instruction to make disciples of all nations. If anything, it shows he needed Paul because the 12 were not doing what he explicitly told them to do.
That's the simplest Biblical explanation
Well, the simplest is that it simply wasn't part of the instructions given to them.
-
7 hours ago, 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. (As you are likely already aware that Matthew 28:19 probably wasn't in the earlier manuscripts.)
-
8 hours ago, Raf said:
The problem with 28 AD as the year of the crucifixion is Luke telling us that John doesn't start baptizing people until the 15th year of Tiberius which is 29 AD.
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.
-
4 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:
The final date of September 11, 4 BC, was arrived at by Ernest Martin and confirmed by Bernegger, McCrae, and John Crouch. That’s why it was in the book they wrote Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed.
Strange... as my copy of the book has September 11. 3 BC.
-
Just now, Infoabsorption said:
Here is the way I understand this 30AD theory from everything I've read: The actual day of Passover was Friday April 7th but it actually began at the sundown the evening before which would have been Thursday April 6th. So the special sabbath(Passover) fell on the preparation day(Friday). The sabbaths were 2-in-a-row, Friday & Saturday.
TLC, yes I've read about the 28AD theory as well which would have placed Christ's birth at 6BC, maybe March 22nd or 23rd. That one is very interesting since Herod the Great died in 4BC. 2 years before that is 6BC.
I disagree with 6BC, as I'm inclined to think his ministry was less than 2 years.
-
3 hours ago, 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.)
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
in Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith
Posted · Edited by TLC
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.