TLC

Redirect and define things however you want, Raf. Doesn't make you or what you say right, and it sure doesn't indicate that you comprehend much of anything that I've said on the matter. Frankly, it was so ridiculous to me that anyone would say or might think that the "proof" (or evidence, if you prefer) they have for the resurrection is obtained by revelation (which was plainly alluded to), that I'm inclined to think your own chosen verbiage (i.e., "spiritual insight") and view of it probably isn't much different. Not all evidence is "black or white," and not all evidence is conclusive. Neither is all evidence always obvious, or "verifiable." Personal witness and testimonies are often part of the evidence presented in any courtroom of law, where a jury is used to render a verdict on what the truth is. In short, your huffing and puffing here about certain qualifiers and that "evidence is evidence" really means nothing, other than you don't like the qualifiers. However, right from the get go you made it abundantly clear that you are tossing out and will nullify the evidence and testimony of scripture. So, aside from that, I likewise plainly stated that considered from a material (physical senses only) perspective, there isn't going to be any of the kind of evidence that you were looking for. However, there can be (and are) reasons (transcending that which is written in scripture) for arriving at (i.e., ascertaining) a belief in (the truth of) the resurrection of Christ from the dead, that require an individual to "render a verdict." And even though you said that "Zooming in" and "zooming out" is fair, apparently you still either: (1) have no idea what I might have been referring to, or (2) have no idea how to do it as it relates to this particular issue. But, go ahead and plod along with your fun here. What you think of me or my view on the matter isn't going to change any.

Personal tax records indicate otherwise.

So, you think they defied the IRS, stopped paying it, and have broken the law?

Probably have been, since 1984 (when the law changed.)

Yeah, isn't it wonderful that you're so much sharper and clearly understand the message so much better than those apostles that were brought up in the culture and thinking of that day and time. Or, maybe you prefer to think they just chose to be disobedient and not carry it out. Oh, but that's right.... I almost forgot. You don''t believe any of that really happened anyways...

Well, it seems that Zechariah 8 alludes to the coming (or return) of Christ first, and the instructions that were given to the apostles prior to this were unmistakably clear ( see Matt. 10:5, for example.) However, given that I'm also aware of the possibility that the 144 thousand (of Rev. 7:4) might be sent to all the nations. So, the order of it is a bit uncertain. Still seems, Israel first, either way.

How does your brain know for sure where any thought or sensation comes from?

What difference is there (in your thinking), if there is any, between that and either of the two statements below (which also, may or may not mean the same thing to you)? Once you accept that which is unproveable as true, anything can be accepted as true. Once you accept that which is unproveable as true, anything can be believed.

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.)

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.)

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.

not true, Raf. But I haven't the time or resources at the moment to look it up. It's out there, though.

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.

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.

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.)

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."

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.

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.

Seriously? Just how different might that be from this? Furthermore, I'm curious if (or how) you might be able to better explain what this is, or how it works: 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. 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?

Well, the simplest is that it simply wasn't part of the instructions given to them.

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.)

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.

Strange... as my copy of the book has September 11. 3 BC.

I disagree with 6BC, as I'm inclined to think his ministry was less than 2 years.

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.)