TLC

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.

You're clueless. Not that I'm terribly surprised. Because I did read it, but disagreed with it.

It was stated in words that, evidently, must have escaped you. (Nothing too surprising about that though, eh?)

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.

Some might think and/or agree with that. But I don't... http://www.maxddl.org/Luke - Gentile or a Jew.pdf

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.

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.

Can someone please offer advice on how ANYONE is supposed to have a reasonable discussion with someone who abandons FACTS as a mutually agreed upon premise? 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."

Who are you to think no one should question or challenge you?

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.) Consider, for example, 2Kings 6:15-20. What was real? ...depends on what (or who's) perspective you are looking at it from. Or, does it? Did "what was real" in the situation actually change?

It's not a claim per se; it's my perspective on it... which quite frankly, seems (as evidenced below) that you have very little (if any) real or honest interest in. You've already made up your mind, and seem to have it all figured out already. But here's the rub. You totally missed what I was even talking about. (But go ahead, feel free to blame me for failing to communicate it properly, and take no blame yourself for failing to see it. I'm sure it's not the first or last time I'll be accused like that.) As I am not opposed to rational thinking based on material facts (and never said something as stupid or as silly as that.) Evidently you missed this: 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. So what? There's far more agnostics than atheists, not to mention the many that think or claim to be Christian, that are still bound in their thinking to the limits of their physical senses. If you really (i.e., more honestly) want scriptural support for examples of reasoning beyond the boundaries of the physical sense, some of the easier to grasp examples of it are probably found in the Pauline epistles. (Although, perhaps you - like others of note here at GSC - don't really recognize and consider those writing as being "scripture.") For instance, what "material facts" do you think Paul used as a reasonable basis to conclude (Eph. 2:19) that these Gentiles at Ephesis (to who he was writing) were fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God? Or, for that matter, that Jesus was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification (Rom. 4:25)?

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.

I'm aware of its meaning. The point of it being, humility isn't. Not even with the "most humble" of men. Perhaps there's another way to say it, buy it was as poignant a way as I could think of at the time.

I'm not actually surprised that you can't relate to it or make much sense of it, but I suspect some of the other readers that visit here might.

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.

Incidentally, the following are exclusively your words and thoughts, and do not in any way come anywhere even remotely close to mine: In a broad and generally sense of the word, yes, I do not think humility is anyone here's longsuit. (Myself included.) So there...

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.

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?

call it what you will, it doesn't make it any less true.

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

Sure... just like you'd ask a blind man for directions. (see Rom.5:25, written by one that was, in fact, a Pharisee of the Pharisees. ) both end up in a ditch.

If you were as well versed in scripture as you seemingly suppose yourself to be (a rather ubiquitous attribute here at GSC), I'm curious as to why you would so glibly fail to mention or otherwise account for Luke 18:31-34 or John 20:9. However, that said, maybe the most sensible reason is like the plain and obvious reason they (all) missed it back then. It was hid from them. Yep. Like it or not, God is sovereign, and can (and does) do things like that.... p.s. Perhaps you already have an argument prepared against the meaning (and clarity) of Dan.9:26. Wouldn't really surprise me any at this point, given your stated position on the matter.

Well, if you (or anyone else reading this) honestly want a serious answer to what those two gospels are (and some comparisons between them), then I think this old farmer's explanation of it (from scripture) actually does it in a way that is about as clear and simple as I could find in a relatively short amount of time searching the Internet:

Not true. What part of worship/serve do you not understand? Given the clear context of "everyone" doing this, the slash represents the allowance of a choice between between whichever word was/is/would be the most appropriate or applicable to any given situation. But you, along with Raf, and God knows who else, prefer to choose to read/hear only the words that you want to read or hear, and then proceed to speak/write/rant in much the same judgmental and condescending manner that twi and the wc was/is so notoriously adept at, while totally ignoring or purposefully obscuring the actual heart and intent of what was originally said. What is rude? Perhaps some here might want to ask themselves that same question. So many are so easily offended anymore, seems it;s not just the younger generation that are "snowflakes." Furthermore, I'm not mad or upset with anyone here. I'm far from a professional writer or "communicator" of sorts, but neither do I consider myself as useless or totally incompetent in that arena. I'll simply say that my thinking is obviously on a far different wavelength than others here, and for that reason, I am out.

So, after plainly opining I think Raf would stipulate to "obeying and serving himself," you're now going to turn around and call my same statement of that incorrect? Care to explain that, WW? And for the record, I never accused Raf (or anyone else) of worshiping anything - though evidently, he was exceedingly quick to presume what I wrote meant that, and in such haste to be offended, missed entirely the basic meaning and heartfelt message of what was really said (and intended.) Fact is, there was a purpose (which seems to have eluded others here) for my writing worship/serve in that post, as I am well aware that servitude doesn't necessarily equate to worship. But if you, or anyone else, finds and takes what I wrote to be rude, then so be it. I am more than done with this. (And as rude as Raf takes others to be, he is surely no less rude himself.)