Raf

Can we get a viewer's digest summary for anyone who doesn't have time to sit through the video?

BUT YOU DO. What difference does it make if I believe it? YOU DO. On this thread, I am taking for granted that Paul said these things and that Jesus said these things, unless there is some need to question that. You asked for a scripture in which the 12 were instructed to preach to the Gentiles. I gave you one, and you have bent yourself into a pretzel at a Twizzler factory to deny the obvious -- Jesus absolutely DID tell the 12 to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Sadly, you are so embarrassed at being schooled by an atheist that you refuse to admit the Bible says what is says, and you're using MY unbelief to prove that YOUR Bible is wrong about what it says? I. have. every. right. to. post. on. this. thread. or. any. other. If you read my comment carefully, I did not say you are dumb as a brick (much as I would have been thrilled to do so). I said the apostles would have to be dumb as a brick to take a comment Jesus made that had nothing to do with preaching the gospel and apply it to undermine his extremely clear instruction to preach the gospel to every creature and make disciples of all the nations. And they would have to be that stupid. Easier explanation: Jesus said it. They didn't do it. Jesus gets Paul to step in where the original (well, the new and improved) 12 fell short. This fits the scriptural evidence without turning the 12 into quibbling idiots who don't know what "preach the gospel to every creature and make disciples of all nations" means. I do not understand why you are so unwilling to believe what Jesus said that you will cite my unbelief to justify your ignoring the red-letter words in your Bible.

Ok, TLC. Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that. I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or concern (I'm thinking another word might be appropriate here, but unfortunately it is against the rules to write it out) to address our points. That being said, if you would like to return to the topic of whether Jesus rose from the dead, and whether the evidence is adequate to reach that conclusion, feel free. If you'd rather talk about how much better you are than we because we've exhausted your unlimited supply of patience (a fruit of the spirit -- and yet you ran out of it), then be advised it will be handled accordingly.

You have to be dumb as a brick and deliberately distorting the words of Jesus to take a comment that is not about spreading the gospel and apply it in a way that absolves them of a specific instruction to spread the gospel. I don't think the problem is that I can't put myself in their shoes. The problem is that I respect their intelligence far more than you seem to.

I do that when I know the answer but I don't want to take the next turn. Now if you'll excuse me, I seriously need to find a Three Musketeers. Anyone know where I can find one? Human, you're up.

Another clue is when Jesus told the 12 specifically to make disciples of all nations in his name and preach the gospel to every creature. I swear he must have stuttered. The verse you cite is not even talking about preaching the gospel.

1. This is a game thread. 2. Chill. 3. WW explained it.

My best witness is Christians who know full well I have accurately represented TLC's views and false accusations.

I'll let readers judge who is accurately reflecting the conversation and who's constantly distorting what other people say because he can't defend his own position using evidence.

Mine was. Maybe a Nestle Crunch?

I thought "You wish" was an adequate hint.

Literally not one person here used Campbell's work as the basis for the conclusion that the resurrection is a myth. Not one. It is an event that either happened in history or did not. If you believe the gospels and Acts preserve history, that is your prerogative. I disagree and articulated why. TLC's rebuttals called for accepting, as evidence, that which cannot be discerned from the senses. TLC also questioned my motives for disputing the gospel and scriptural accounts [ie, I just want to toss out scripture]. The problem with questioning my motives is, even if you are correct to do so, it does not alter the evidence. Luke is still unreliable on history and not above inventing miraculous tales [nativity, esp. its timing]. I'll cite more on request. The problem with evidence that doesn't come by the senses is that there's no way to test it or even confirm its existence. Every single religion without exception claims some form of non-senses evidence. On what basis do you accept one religion's extrasensory claims over another's? You can't do it without engaging in circular reasoning. That is, testing it against the Bible assumes the Bible to be true, but that is what we're questioning in the first place. The thing with a falsifiable thesis is, if you assume it is NOT true, the evidence will still lead back to it. That is how evidence works

You wish

You need a snickers. You get cryptic when you're hungry

I've pretty much dropped everything but Flash. Supergirl is good, but the obvious political overtones are too much even for me. And Arrow is just one damn fight sequence after another. Legends is goofy, but i just lost track of whatever the hell it is they are trying to accomplish.

I was going for non-iconic lines spoken by other characters to get it to be at least a LITTLE bit of a challenge. You are of course, correct

"Listen, you promise me something, OK? Just if you're ever in trouble, don't be brave. You just run, OK? Just run away." *** "This is a new company record! If it wouldn't be such a waste of a damn-fine enlisted man I'd recommend you for OCS! You are gonna be a general someday."

it is

I I I posted the video. Mmmbop, by Hanson

Halloween iii was an unrelated story. The rest were about Michael Meyers. H2O ignored everything after Halloween Ii. Halloween (2018) considered ALL sequels apocryphal

yes

By the way, there were at least 8 sequels before this one. One of the sequels, oddly, told a completely unrelated story. A few sequels were completely ignored by a later sequel. Then there was a remake (not a sequel) that had the same name as the original. That had a sequel too, though part 2 of the remake bore little resemblance to the original part 2. It was not called "part 2." I'm just using that for ease. So when the latest sequel was announced, it had the exact same name as the original. But it was announced as a sequel. However, its storyline ignored everything except the first movie. The sequels were no longer canon. It is not sci fi

close enough. I Want You was the name of the song. And according to the lyrics included with the cd, it is indeed a chick-a-cherry cola. You're up

I don't know where you're going with that, so I can't tell if you're on the right track. I can tell you that a little kid could figure this one out. Only goes to show what little people can do.

Independence Day Resurgence did not have the same title as its predecessor