TLC

Been a while since I've read up on this, but it seems I recall the most reasonable year of the crucifixion being 28AD. Guess I'll have to go back and check some sources (which seemed pretty thorough at the time...)

No. Of course, if I actually knew who you might be referring to (I'd need a far better clue than mere initials) and they were at HQ or in an earlier corps back in the day, there's always the possibility that I knew them from back then. But certainly not since then. And aside from it being a terribly clumsy (if not bass ackward) way to refer to what I've said previously on this thread, at least it isn't an accusation of ignoring facts (which I see as a step in a more positive direction.) Not sure it can be easily done, but as mentioned previously, perhaps there's another way to communicate the thought using the analogy of an autostereogram, or hologram...(if/when I have time.) All the material facts in the world, no matter how carefully taken apart, analyzed, put together or studied will never reveal what might be known or revealed by (or through) them with the right light (aka, spiritual perspective.)

Care to try again... genius?

Doesn't surprise me that what you claim it smells like isn't how it might smell to someone else. And I didn't write 2Cor.2:15-16.

Taken out of context (which you're so easily inclined towards with certain things I write, such as this) typically does facilitate "another way to read" most things. In case you forgot (or chose to ignore), it started here: Then went here: Here: And here: Note the bolded line. Seems you missed the word (or the meaning) of augmented. Perhaps there's another way to depict the difference which, if I have time, will attempt to describe. What must be noted, however, is that the reality I hold to doesn't (as you purport, and would have others believe) simply ignore physical evidence. (And it's not as if this is the first time I've pointed this out.) Furthermore, you do realize that I never said that God deliberately made it harder for smart people to be saved, don't you? What I said or alluded to, was that He didn't make it easier for them. And the reason for it stems all the way back to the choice that Adam made (which I have no time, nor good reason, to delve into further - especially on this forum.)

There's difference between merely being intelligent, and being part of the intelligentsia described in my previous post, which evidently you have either failed or refused to recognize.

Contrary to your perverted opinion, I don't consider or call believers (in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ) stupid. They do, however, have the spirit of Christ as means to provide additional information... which is something you incessantly equate to stupidity.

no chit, Sherlock. I suppose you've never misspoke or didn't bother to proofread something before posting because you were in a hurry. And yes, putting intellectual in quotes was quite intentional, not as a way to denigrate his education as much as it was to categorically include him in the intelligentsia that has been at work since olden times to effectually dethrone the spirit and obfuscate the simplicity and love of the truth in so many of lesser mental acumen. It is an affront to me, as you incessantly continue to twist and distort - or more bluntly, to outright lie about - what I have previously stated. But, you do whatever you want here Raf. I don't have the time or concern to contend with your (or a few others here) inability to grasp another perspective on the matter...

go the foolish, accusatory, ad hominem rout all you want, Raf. the fact is that you actually know incredibly little about me, my background, my educational experience, my intelligence quotient, my life or my heart.

There's no point in rounding third base if first base is nowhere in sight.

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.