Raf

oops

There is an implication here that I took a question out of context and spun it. I'll leave it to readers to go back to the posts in question and decide if I did any such thing. Quite simply, Jesus told the apostles to preach the gospel, and he did not limit them to Israel first, reserving a special, later commission for Paul. Scripturally, Paul is special because he took "disciple all nations in my name" seriously. Despite having heard the clear instruction from the lips of the risen savior himself, the original 12 did not do what he said. Now, it could very well be that they thought of themselves as ministers to the circumcision, and that was certainly the case before the crucifixion. But if we are going to ask the question whether there was a clear Biblical directive for them to preach to the gentiles, the question has explicit Biblical answers. The apostles did not do what Jesus said to do. No amount of "but months earlier he said something else" changes the fact that after the resurrection, the biggest change in circumstance in the history of the world, Jesus changed the instruction and the apostles didn't do it. Why? Biblically, it's simple. The apostles weren't perfect. They were wrong not to go beyond Israel. He told them to and they didn't do it. Had to give Peter an amazing vision just to get him to preach the gospel to A gentile after he had already told all the apostles to disciple ALL NATIONS in his name. PETER! What made Paul special? He seems to be the only apostle who took that instruction seriously. That's not so hard. It allows scripture to tell its own story without pretending the apostles were obedient when they clearly fell short on one instruction. Doesn't make them bad people. But if they had done what Jesus specifically told them to do, Jesus wouldn't have needed to commission Paul for that particular purpose. Simple and scriptural.

Look, I am sorry that you asked a very specific question that the Bible very specifically answers and you have to be shown the answer from the Bible by an atheist who knows the book better than you do. But that is no excuse for you trying to make this thread about me. You really need to get back on topic. You asked a question. The Bible answered it. Accept the Bible's answer, or admit that you don't believe the book any more than I do.

you are off topic

You can't argue with statements of faith, but assertions of fact are subject to challenge. The Biblical story of Exodus is uncorroborated by history. If Moses existed, he would have left a gaping wound on Egyptian history -- one they would have had no choice but to document. Egypt would no more have forgotten Moses than the USA would forget Pearl Harbor or 9/11. What does Egyptian history say about Moses? Not a damn word. What about the Pharoah Moses defied? Well, we don't know who that is because the Israelite priest who concocted the story didn't have the wherewithal to name the Pharoah! He might as well have set the story in Atlantis. A real history would have named the Pharoah. So there was this Hebrew terrorist who led a slave revolt and in one night every firstborn in Egypt, including livestock, died. In one night. And Egypt didn't notice. No record of this nightmarish terror in all of Egyptian history. Sorry: the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when and where evidence would be expected. You can't say this empire-crippling incident happened and then shrug when the empire's histories make no mention of it. Moses is no more real than Paul Bunyan.

lol. Um... you haven't been paying attention. The first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses. They weren't written until the Babylonian exile. Check the authors? Is that a joke? Matthew didn't write Matthew. Whoever wrote Mark knew nothing about Palestinian geography. Luke flat out lied about the circumstances of Jesus' birth. And John tells stories so astonishing that it's inconceivable the other gospel writers would have ignored them. Check the authors? As if we have the slightest idea who wrote the Torah and the gospels! [Actuallyt they do have an idea who wrote the Torah... it just wasn't Moses].

The free vocalization line was funny though. Well played

Perseus existed. Hercules existed. Because I said so and I have a book that says they did. Sure.

The three things 1. Jesus was a Jew who preached Judaism to other Jews. 2. He was a messianic figure (one of many at the time) who preached an apocalyptic message focused on what he called the Kingdom of God. 3. He was arrested and executed by the Romans under Pilate. I'm not sure how much of the second point can be gleaned from "history" given that he excludes Christian sources when he said that. Nonetheless, I think he's probably right. I would add that Jesus probably really was from Nazareth (two gospel writers go to great, unrealistic, mutually exclusive pains to explain why someone from Nazareth was born in Bethlehem).

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