TLC

So, you want everyone to believe he was just plain stupid? I guess not. However, you must have overlooked part of my previous post. Here it is again (in case you missed it): However, evidently most (or all) that have posted here think pretty much the same of it (i.e., don't believe it did happen, and thinks anyone who believes it did was either tricked or fooled into it, or simply is a fool.)

Ah, but if there's "many gods", it seems straight forward and easy enough to think there would be unique differences (and forms of worship) for various locations and cultures around the world. And, as the story goes (before Noah), it didn't work out so well when God was (more or less) accessible to all the world. So, when it started going south again (insert: the tower of Babel, etc.), God apparently decided to try something different in calling out Abraham, and in separating Israel from all other nations.

The intent was not to single him out as "a model of intelligence," but rather, to show that there's evidently something other than mere intelligence - or a lack of it - involved.

So is the parting of the Red Sea (and most any other of the signs, miracles, and wonders written in the scriptures.) Though it's a parable, it seems there's an inherent truth written in Luke 16:29-31.

Seems you're totaling ignoring the possibility of differing gods, with differing intentions and purposes.

I asked to see how you (or others here) might actually think of it or answer, not merely to hear or read of something elsewhere. However, evidently most (or all) that have posted here think pretty much the same of it (i.e., don't believe it did happen, and thinks anyone who believes it did was either tricked or fooled into it, or simply is a fool.) Certainly doesn't flatter or say much for the intelligence of a supposed member of the Athenian judicial council, but what does that matter, eh?

Why did (and do) some (such as Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them) believe it?

If there were no belief in the resurrection, I don't see much reason why Christianity would have survived past the first century (if that that long, even.)

The ceiling of Notre Dame.

Given I'm not part of the "we" in your statement, I don't have any sort of answer to such a question other than the most obvious. IF it is indeed fraudulent for a particular individual, why would it be expected to enhance an understanding anything, much less that which is spiritual?

Depending on what or how something is asked, yes, it can be... even as yours is. Take, for example, your last question... as I didn't write or speak of "ascertaining spiritual information" (as though it were just an extra piece of the puzzle,) yet you put it in quotes as though it were something which I definitely said, or at least meant (apparently as another attempt to draw or squeeze some sort of missing "revelation" into the equation). What else would you call it, if not spin? Furthermore, I've already described what I did say (about ascertaining spiritual realities) in another way, which evidently you seemed to have missed or chose to ignore. So, given we obviously don't see the same thing when looking at the paint, you want me to describe... what? What you can't or don't see?

Frankly, it sounds to me like you prefer talking in circles, and we are on such different wavelengths I can't really follow the way you evidently must think. So you probably think I'm crazy (but yeah... I think you're crazy.) But to answer your question (which certainly has an appearance of trying to put words in my mouth), no... and I'm not the one that first mentioned or brought up anything about "thoughts" popping up or appearing in your head. You did. For what purpose or reason, I'm still at a loss to see. Looks to me like an effort to spin something I might have posted previously into something called "revelation."

There are MANY ways to twist things, Raf, not all of which are necessarily intentional. And, to a certain extent, I suppose that we are all guilty of it at one time or another (and I'm no saint)... so why be so upset and claim that somehow you're so perfect that you never do? More than once you've jumped to conclusions or "put words in my mouth" in an effort to get your point across or validate your view simply by misstating or misrepresenting mine. Call it whatever you want, but it appears to me to be no different than twisting. Perhaps you'd prefer calling it spin. Some number of news media folk are real pros at it. So good, in fact, a fair number of people don't (maybe can't) recognize it for what it is. Really? Then why post this: Probably a good thing I didn't see this: But, if you really did care to discuss it (see below) more openly (I.e. intelligently), without putting the typical derogatory spin on my posts (kindly let me know if that's possible, and you'd agree not to), it's not some quick and easy 15 minute deal. Simply put, I'm not persuaded that they didn't (at least, try to) do what they were told to do. Not only does Luke (24:47) speak of it beginning at Jerusalem, Peter calls upon "all the house of Israel" to know in Acts 2:36 and for "every one" [all the house of Israel] to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Peter rather plainly states in Acts 3:25 that it was in Abraham's seed that all the kindreds of the earth be blessed, and follows that up by telling "Ye men of Israel" (see verse 12) that the blessing is "unto you first," in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. However, I could agree that had "all the house of Israel" repented and been baptized (as mentioned above), there would have been no need to commission Paul to do what he did. No, Raf. That's your take on it. And regardless of who or where all you might or might not be taking it from, it doesn't exactly fit with all other scripture. But to set if forth as the be all, end all, "this is what the Bible shows and tells" is, in so many words, your "spin"on it (aka, this is how every other reasonable and logically thinking person surely sees it.) Ever try to put yourself in their shoes, Raf? Maybe not. But, if you were there, immersed in their long, deeply religious background and culture... generation after generation of tradition, having such great respect for the scriptures and the prophets of old, that foretold of a great Messiah (like unto Moses) that would one day deliver the nation of Israel from its enemies, and reign as their king, to restore it (the nation of Israel) to its former glory among all the nations of the earth... where it (Israel) was not the tail, but the head, above all other nations on earth... perhaps it wouldn't be so strange to you to think that maybe the gospel of the kingdom message was intended for "all the house of Israel" first. And in light of that, perhaps the reason for calling out Paul would be seen more, not as a failure of the 12 apostles to follow instructions, but rather, as the failure of "all the house of Israel" to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ... which, by the way, was clearly established in Acts 7, with the high priest and council of Israel's complete and utter rejection of Stephen's powerful testimony. Furthermore, to what does Paul attribute salvation coming unto the Gentiles? Not the failure of the 12 apostles. No, it was the failure of Israel. (see Romans 11.) What failure? In that they rejected and crucified Jesus Christ? That's part of it, yes. But not the whole of it. Why exclude the nation's failure to recognize the mistake, and simply repent and be baptized in his name (even as the 3000 did on the day of Pentecost)? Had the nation, as a whole, done so, would it not have to be said in Romans 11:11 that they stumbled (for sure, as they killed him), but did not fall? Yet, the nation (represented by the council and high priest) did fall, as noted in Acts 7. Hence, the introduction to Saul immediately thereafter. Not a coincidence, it seems. All of which begins to paint quite a different picture then what you've put forth as what the Bible "shows and tells."

By whose definition? That may be one that you think and/or accept, but I surely don't. Given where this thread is located, seems unclear to me exactly which "spiritual entity" you may have intended to refer to here... which is why I opposed it, as at first glance, it appeared as if it referred to God (and not the serpent.) And, your "thought that pops into his/her head" phrase simply isn't something that I associate every day with how the devil operates (even if it is.) Neither do I see that phrase as being appropriate or fitting with any recorded interaction between the devil and Jesus Christ. Consequently, your post doesn't actually make much sense.

Don't even pretend that you care one whit about what I might see or think on the matter.

In a manner of speaking (perhaps), it paints a picture. By whose definition? That may be one that you think and/or accept, but I surely don't. Twice now you've tried to insert and bring some (rather kinky) concept of (personal) "revelation" to the forefront, as if it were the key (or at least, essential) to anything I've said. And it's not. What sort of ridiculous question is that? Oh... ridiculous. That was your point, I suppose. To ridicule.

No, I wasn't. However, there doesn't appear to be much reason why that shouldn't (or wouldn't) be included, if it were given (rare as it might be.)

How convenient for you to only quote part of the post, to make it appear as though those statements were something (anything) other than at attempt to clarify what Raf had said previously. Par for the course, I suppose. Aside from that, however, I don't disagree with or object to most of the rest of your post, other than to note that the ability to "think/reason at a higher level" alludes to doing so in a manner that can (or at least, might) take into consideration the possibility that there certain (invisible) realities that are only possible to ascertain through the use of reasoning at a higher level!

Clearly you don't care to think about this from another perspective, nor do you know what motivates me... but why bother projecting (apparently your own) arrogant meanness onto me? Furthermore, given your proclivity towards trying to twist what I say into a knot, there's not a doubt in my mind that you do much the same with scripture. It appears by the title of this thread that it would primarily contain or concern itself with what Paul is presumed to have written. With that in mind, I had previously posted (on 7/12/2018 at 1:25 AM) that before his death Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision, as were the 12 apostles. The point being, the gospel that they were given and instructed to promote, was not the same gospel that was given to and promoted by Paul (who was very clearly and plainly called out as *the* apostle to the Gentiles.) Yet, instead of considering whether or not *the gospel* (the focal point of the directive) that was given the 12 preached ever changed or was different from that which was given to Paul, you determined to steer it entirely and solely towards who it was applicable to. Which, btw, I was quick to point out here: But note your own stedfast determination to (as noted above) quickly steer it entirely and solely (aka, twisting) back towards who it was applicable to: So, don't play like or pretend that you don't ever twist things, as plainly you do (and then brag about how good you are, as you "throw up your hands up trying to reason with them.") There's more than ample addition scriptural evidence that illustrates significant differences between the gospel of the Kingdom (which the 12 promoted) and the gospel of grace (which was first given to the apostle Paul), which I have little time nor concern for discussing any further here (with the likes of you.)

The point was simply that I haven't previously associated the word "lynchpin" with the infallibility of anything, much less to my personal belief in, and foundation in, the resurrection of Christ (which was established well before any exposure to twi or pfal.) Furthermore, prior to pfal, I was also already well aware of the canonization of the Bible, and the differences between what is written on the pages of a book and a personal relationship with the Lord. So, if you think that vpw's "chuck the whole thing out the window" statement had much of an impact or effect on my thinking at the time (or since then)... well then, it does indeed seem you'd be mistaken.

Is this not a doctrinal forum, regardless of what was or wasn't in pfal (which itself was a far cry from the "rightly divided" word of truth.)

Not fooling anyone, Raf. And I'm sure we'll each end [rewarded] appropriately.

Never heard of it being the "lynchpin" of anything, much less thought it. Impossible. For starters, I'm well aware of the correlation, and the difference, between the Bible and the Word of God (something which you appear to have little to no regard or concern for.) Yes, I plainly (and perhaps unfairly) shortcut the steps between 1 and 3. Still, there is a fundamental difference in attitude that affects our approach to what is written in the Bible. Some will direct their focus on finding a problem and why it can't be resolved, while others choose to remain focused on finding an answer. Mistaking what the Bible is (and isn't) is a roadblock that many just never seem to be able to really overcome.

Step 1: Step 2: There is no scripture, as scripture cannot be broken. (John 10:35.) Step 3: There is no God.

NFW.