TLC

Saying (or thinking) I lied about the relevance of a verse confirming that there were indeed differences that are better, is a manifestation of insanity.

More spin, Raf? Perhaps it's such a part of your nature at this point that you just don't know how (or can't) stop it. Contrary to your implication, I never said, implied, or otherwise alluded to any kind of distinction that regards one as being real and one as being a fraud. That's a fraudulent fabrication straight out of your own imagination. Maybe it's some sort of rationalization that you invented to cover over or draw attention away from your initial failure to see the relevance of Phil. 1:10 in my previous post. But shame on you for trying to (falsely) credit me with being either the first, or the only one, to ever see or think of it's usage here in Philippians 1:10 as being "different," in an improved sense. The nuance of it's usage just as strongly (probably more so) indicates that something is different (or changed) from whatever was previous as it indicates that said difference is an improvement. Furthermore, this is merely one little old verse among many others along the path leading to the FACT that the gospel that Paul received and took to the Gentiles was not the same gospel that the 12 had and (by and large) continued to adhere to. Of course, that concept is something that you have already determined to be invalid, and have completely closed yourself off from. Which in and of itself is fine. That's your choice. I just don't care for the idiocy that you try to brand everyone else with that doesn't happen to agree with you.

Young's Literal Translation: 3I give thanks to my God upon all the remembrance of you, 4always, in every supplication of mine for you all, with joy making the supplication, 5for your contribution to the good news from the first day till now, 6having been confident of this very thing, that He who did begin in you a good work, will perform [it] till a day of Jesus Christ, 7according as it is righteous for me to think this in behalf of you all, because of my having you in the heart, both in my bonds, and [in] the defence and confirmation of the good news, all of you being fellow-partakers with me of grace. 8For God is my witness, how I long for you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ, 9and this I pray, that your love yet more and more may abound in full knowledge, and all judgment, 10for your proving the things that differ, that ye may be pure and offenceless — to a day of Christ, 11being filled with the fruit of righteousness, that [is] through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=Διαφέρω Now that you've so arrogantly opened mouth and inserted foot, how about an apology?

call it whatever you want. It won't change what I see it as, no matter how many times it's read. Might be how you see it. Which is okay. You're certainly entitled to be wrong if you want your opinion. Maybe you haven't done enough research on the matter. Can't say this will be the most or best help to start digging more into it, but I only spent a couple of minutes checking to see what might be easily found on the Internet about it: http://www.seekfirstwisdom.com/are-there-two-gospels/ Sure it does. You simply have to consider the context of it and connect the dots.

You obviously sidestepped the question and spun it in a completely different direction. Call it whatever you want, but I see that as twisting... as I am more inclined to agree that there was little change in the gospel that the 12 had and preached post-resurrection. What could or would save them before appears to be the same that could or would save them after. But what was given and said to save them was not the same gospel that was later given to Paul. Which is undoubtedly why he (Paul) very plainly and unmistakably referred to it (three times, that I can think of) as "my gospel." The gospel which Paul preached was not simply "more" than what the 12 had been given. While certain things may be similar, other things are different. And it's a difference that is important enough that it even appears to be called different (if the Greek were translated more consistently) by Paul in Philippians 1:10.

Why change the message (i.e., gospel) that was given to Paul?

You suppose that he "truly understood" exactly what, after Acts 10 and the incident with Cornelius? That he no longer needed to follow all the laws of Moses, and should (or could) eat with the Gentiles? (see Gal.2:12, if you're wondering about an answer to that.) There's little doubt that he was called on the carpet over his visit there, and the mere fact that he stood up and came to Paul's defense (in Acts 15, probably some 9 or 10 years later) only after "there had been much disputing" might be an indication that the incident with Cornelius was so strange and abnormal (and from a practical perspective, changed virtually nothing) that Peter might have nearly forgotten about it (until it was needed for Paul's defense, in Acts 15.) Furthermore, considering that in lieu of Peter's remembrance of it (as no one else there at the council in Jerusalem evidently remembered it prior to Peter's bringing it up) it's doubtful that those that were at that meeting would have ever kept quiet long enough to even hear what all Barnabas and Paul had to say on the matter. And, in light of that, it seems fairly reasonable to wonder whether or not the primary reason (and effect) for the entire event with Cornelius was not so much to alter or change the course of what the 12 and the church at Jerusalem were thinking or doing, as much as it was to enable Peter to rise to Paul's defense and give his (Paul's) gospel the stamp of approval from the church at Jerusalem some many, many years later.

I'm sure there must be a name for this kind of flawed logic. I just don't know what it is. flawed? ...because you don't care to (or can't) connect the dots? Or is it that you have some different view or better understanding of Ezek.37:21-28?

Allow me to correct that for you. My view of it is incompatible with your (apparently limited) scope and/or comprehension of scripture. Actually, the scripture that I cited in my response (see below) to your first attempt to answer the question was indeed relevant to the question. Hard to get much more relevant, imo. Because you're being such a ridiculous and utter twit about it, still trying (again) to twist and distort the truth of what I have and haven't said about it (when the discussion was plainly under the umbrella of "doctrinal.") Fact: This entire post of mine (below) was strictly a response to your posting a reference to Acts 1:7 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.) Fact: If it wasn't clear enough for you that I gave no thought to Matthew 28:19 in that particular post, that should have been more than obvious in my next post (below.) 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. Evidently you prefer to ignore this possibility, and think there is no scripture anywhere in the Bible that might lend any credence whatsoever to such a crazy idea as that. [that yes... it would and does include gentiles, if and/or when Israel becomes a "kingdom of priests." see Exodus 19:6.] However, might I suggest that you dig a little deeper in scripture, and/or talk to some of your Jewish buddies or scholars (whatever the case might be) that believe in (and are expecting the arrival of) a Messiah. Try learning a bit more about where or what role Israel expects to play out in the global picture. Maybe then you'll back off a little from such a pompous position. Or, maybe not. In any event, seems I'm done here under the "questioning faith" umbrella of what Paul said or did. In 2Tim. 2:4 he writes "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith" ... and it so happens that I believe that he did. Others can choose to believe whatever they want to about him, or whatever is written about him.

Sure there is. But that would be off topic from what seems to be the originator's intent of this thread.

not in the slightest... even though after being admonished for it by another moderator, you continue wanting to make it personal. we see it differently, and long ago I gave my view of it. you can neither acknowledge or accept that. "your way" is the only right way and everyone else is wrong. there are words for that, but you certainly don't need any more help making this any more about you.

Absolutely. And there were a LOT of them that asked (aka, "pushed") for it. Because if you had the right title, people would hear (listen to) you. Or so the story goes... However, there were those (as least one... and probably some number of others) that when asked if they wanted to be ordained, declined (and never were.)

Why suppose that the instructions given to Paul were exactly the same as what was given others previously?

The topic had (obviously) changed. Say or call it whatever you want, it is and will remain your interpretation (be it right or wrong) of the Bible's answer. Which, has no affect or correlation to what I do or don't (much less should or shouldn't) believe concerning the book.

That's a crock of BS that anyone with half a brain could see through. Evidently you find some sort of perverse pleasure in thwarting any sort of discovery or discussion of differences between the gospel message that the twelve apostles preached and the gospel that Paul introduced. Continue playing your sick little game, Raf, but I won't. You went back over 3 pages (July of last year) in this thread to spin some comment made in a rather different context (concerning a change in the gospel and the authority that Paul might have had) into what I thought was a discussion about differences between what the twelve preached and what Paul preached. Yet, rather than consider or look at what the actual message is or isn't, you remain hell bent on patting yourself on the back that you (an atheist) think you might have found a scripture that I didn't know was in the Bible or don't believe what it says (even though you're flat out wrong on both accounts.) Not that you will care or give a hoot, but I'll ask this for the sake of anyone else reading. Did Jesus (while he lived here with his disciples) ever not keep and follow the law? When did trying to do likewise and teaching others to "observe all things whatsoever" Jesus commanded them [the 12] to do change? Or did it... ever?

You don't believe it was ever said by Jesus, as written in scripture, so why are you even on this thread? Isn't this supposed to be about what Paul said? Frankly, I don't really give a hoot whether or not the 12 apostles did or didn't understand his instructions. Fact is, their focus and intent was reach all of Israel with their message first and foremost. All you seem intent on doing is accusing me (by implication) of any and every ill or stupid thing you can think of, as if you know exactly what was meant in words that you don't believe were ever spoken by Jesus. And you dare talk about having to be as dumb as a brick. But, I guess it's some game you like to play to control whatever board (or thread) or conversation you can.

I'm not surprised why you might have difficulty putting yourself in someone else's shoes, and trying to consider something from what might be their perspective.

Given the stark difference in how either of us choose to learn or communicate, seems I just don't have the patience or concern to respond to much of your saucy prodding.

Another clue as to what might have been in the minds of the 12 apostles in the days following the resurrection of Christ, is this verse: Matthew 19 [27] Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? [28] And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Sarcasm gotten you far in life, has it?

and I yours... given how you repeatedly lie about what I post, and twist what I say. Evidently it's impossible for you (an investigative reporter ?) to see it from my perspective. Yet, you continually get bent out of shape when I call you on it., as if you're perfect and never do the very thing you persistently accuse me of doing. For instance, here a sampling of spin from your last exhale: You know I never said that. Not that you said I did, but that is what is implied. That's spin. Or twist. Call it whatever you want. That's about as close to a lie as it gets. In fact, I said nearly the opposite. That (possibly by design) there was no evidence for believing it, but that there were reasons. Furthermore, I plainly stated that in spite of this lack of evidence, "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." But you set about to put your own spin on that earlier post (somewhere on page 10) to make it look like I was trying to present "non-evidence" as evidence. So it appears that you have a difficult time comprehending the difference between what is deemed to be evidence and what all can, might, and/or does fall into the category of "reasons." More spin, and an (implied) lie. How so? By conveniently (probably intentionally) leaving a word or two - or even the entire context - (see below, in red) out of what I actually said. Furthermore, I actually don't care much about what does or doesn't motivate you, so the only reason I might have for questioning or doubting your motives might be if I thought you were trying to conceal or mask them. Maybe I'm missing something from an earlier post, but quite frankly, I just don't recall that being the case anywhere in this thread, and I don't know why you're so insistent on saying I did question your motives. To put it bluntly, they seem rather obvious. Care to explain exactly what "evidence that doesn't come by the senses" it is that you think I've talked about or tried to present here as evidence? Probably not. So, Ignore or spin this however you want, it won't change what it actually says: Keep on playing games with what I've said and claim you don't twist or spin them into something else if you want... but don't expect me not to call you on it.

I did look at it, as plainly stated in my last post.

Seems you missed my point. There was no need to do much more than glance at his work to gather you (and others here) see it (the resurrection) as being nothing more than a myth. However, I see it from a far different perspective. (And it's not as if I'm completely ignorant of psychology. For a time, I eyed psychiatry as a prospective career.)

I have absolutely no doubt that there are a great many very reasonable, logically put together, and highly intelligent reasons not to believe, Raf. In fact, aside from the one mentioned below (bold letters - obviously my emphasis), I suppose it would be rather difficult for anyone to make much of kind of sense of it (or case for it.) So, if you want to throw out scripture in its entirety, well... seems you simply (and more honestly) have virtually nothing left to think through or ponder. The door is shut. Acts 17 [11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. [12] Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.