TLC
-
Posts
1,311 -
Joined
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by TLC
-
-
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.)
-
6 hours ago, Raf said:
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm going by these dates, but if you have a better site, I'm all ears.
On that list, the 14th (preparation day) is a Friday. Saturday (the weekly sabbath and the special sabbath) coincided. Sometimes Christmas falls on a Sunday, Happens.
Also, the stuff I looked at earlier kind of relies on Jesus' ministry being less than a year. If tradition is correct and it was three years, then his death was in 32 AD. Nisan 14 was a Monday.
And, of course, if Luke is wrong about AD 29 (like he was wrong about the census around the time of Jesus' birth), AND TWI was wrong about the birth date, then we've opened a number of possibilities, none of which can be verified.
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...)
-
17 hours ago, Rocky said:
By the way, I know of a female TWIt who, though disclaiming twi these days, makes the same ridiculous (and illogical) argument about the "logic" of spiritually augmented "factual" knowledge as "TLC" has on this thread topic. I wonder if TLC might know that person with initials SKP.
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.)
-
22 minutes ago, Raf said:
Note: when someone praises you for not listening to intelligent people (1 Cor. 13:19), it's not a compliment.
Care to try again... genius?
-
1 hour ago, Raf said:
Your bull.... smells like what bull.... would smell like if bull.... could .....
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. -
On 4/6/2019 at 8:30 AM, Raf said:
Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice).
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:
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
Then went here:
On 3/13/2019 at 6:25 PM, TLC said:Frankly, I don't see why (or how) believing in the resurrection of Christ would ever result from the intellectual processing of "evidence," for some number of reasons.
Perhaps this is a bit repetitive, but any and all experiential (or, experimental - if you prefer) evidence (as commonly defined) actually leads to the opposite conclusion - there isn't any resurrection from death. The simple fact is, the ONLY reason anyone nowadays (really) believes that Christ was raised from the dead and lives forevermore, is that they have opened themselves up to the possibility that they won't (rather, that they just can't) make it - or "make sense of it" (... I'm hesitant to think this can be strictly defined, or narrowed down to certain few words) - with their own limited and/or failed abilities.
If it (i.e., believing in the resurrection of Christ, which equates to salvation) were dependent on man's intellectual prowess or ability to "put together the evidence" (however you care to say or think of it)... then there is little doubt that those that were smarter or endowed with more intellectual or reasoning ability (or maybe even just "better access" to evidence) would be at the front of the line for salvation. Making God a respecter of persons, don't you think? Why so advantage some, if that were the case, when it comes to salvation?
Here:
On 3/14/2019 at 7:36 AM, TLC said:Well, if adapting (for lack of a better word) one's fundamental basis for reality (i.e., what is true) so as to allow for "help from above" (as another way to say it) is (as seems to be in your mind) only perceived as some sort of abandonment of (or disregard for) genuine intelligence or sound reasoning, then that appears to be the perspective of someone that has never actually (or genuinely) experienced help from above.
And here:
On 3/14/2019 at 10:13 AM, TLC said:Yes, I do think it takes a certain humility for anyone to accept (i.e., believe) the resurrection, however said "certain humility" is not something that anyone should (nor can) lay claim to or don as something unique, "special" or in some weird way ubiquitous unto themselves. It's much too easy to find oneself moved or transitioned from an honest sense of humility to a rather high and mighty position of "more worth" and self-righteousness. So, please stop labeling this as some kind of moral justification or emotional rationalization (and/or stop taking it as a personal assault) and lay it (humility) down (and keep it) where it belongs.
Then allow me to be perfectly clearly here: Your conclusion is false and your contention has absolutely no merit.
To repeat (in so many words), We simply do not share or have exactly the same basis for reality (i.e., what it true, or "real.") You limit your reality to what is or can be received via the physical senses. I do not. I believe that "reality" not merely can be... but is, determined (i.e., set in order) and augmented by the (invisible) logos (aka, "the Word of God".)
Your reality is determined in its entirely by, and communicated exclusively in terms of, "facts."
Mine is not, nor can it be.
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.)
On 3/15/2019 at 4:47 PM, TLC said:Evidently your position is that anything not based in material facts isn't (indeed, can't be) reasonable... which I see as being a very erroneous premise.
However, I really don't care to delve much into why it is. (Especially given the degree of entrenchment you've expressed in that regard.)
You "reason" one way, and I reason another way. I have no issue seeing or admitting that, but apparently you do. Anything not done (i.e., reasoned) "your way" is ALWAYS thought of as being inferior, logically deficient, without merit, and (if little else)... void of reason.
Now, go right ahead and think or call this some sort of ad hominine attack on you, personally. But honestly speaking, it's not. It's faulting the perspective that you have presented on what is (or can be thought of as being) "reasonable."
When the apostle Paul, as his manner was, reasoned with various men in his day and time... do you likewise think (as you have done thus far) that because he based many of his words and thoughts on scripture that he too had "gleefully abandoned" reason? Or, perhaps you suppose that his (or anyone else's, for that matter) manner of reasoning was only valid (or reasonable) to the point that it contained or was based on hard factual (material) evidence. Frankly, it a bit of a challenge to me trying to understand why you're so stuck on "cold hard facts," so to speak. There's just too many times it seems that "said facts" (i.e., evidences) are incomplete, and eventually end up moving or changing.
On 3/16/2019 at 7:40 AM, TLC said:The issue at hand undoubtedly resides in seeing or understanding the difference between a reality based exclusively on material (i.e., physical) evidence, and reality based (or formulated, if you prefer) on such evidence augmented with spiritual (aka, invisible) information. The later doesn't exclude or deny the former, it supersedes it.
On 3/16/2019 at 10:39 AM, TLC said:It's really not all that complicated. It boils down to our perception and understanding of reality. In other words, what we believe is real (or true.)
On 3/19/2019 at 9:54 AM, TLC said:Try and spin my words however you want, it doesn't change what is actually written there. My approach is not (as you purport it to be) an abandonment of facts. However, what it does do, is to allow for the addition of certain pertinent (and consistent), but invisible, information into the equation (i.e. the reasoning process.) Your systemic exclusion of which, leads to what (in computer terms) might be deemed an "unknown variable error."
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.)
-
1 minute ago, Raf said:
You constantly refer to them as people of lesser [note the spelling] mental acumen and distinguish them from those with intelligence. So, yeah, sorry, but the way communication works is, you're calling them stupid.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Raf said:
You know, if I called believers stupid half the number of times you have, I would be run out of this forum on a rail.
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.
-
16 hours ago, Raf said:
That's "intelligence quotient," genius.
Listen, you're the one who put "intellectual" in quotes, thus resorting to ad hominem against an educated scholar in the field we are discussing.
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.
16 hours ago, Raf said:And calling you "evidence-dismissing" is not an attack. It is an accurate description of your own stated method of approaching this material.
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...
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
in Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith
Posted
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.)