Raf

To be clear: If you are claiming tht YOUR SIT is genuine, then according to the Bible, you are producing a language. Can you establish, through evidence, what that language is? If so, you might have some claim to some spiritual connection. If not, you're full of sh*t and I am under no obligation to believe otherwise. Anyone can fake tongues. If you claim to not be faking it, then the burden is on you to prove it. What''s the language? That's the thing. If you make a testable claim, then that claim is subject to testing. Like, if I say I have a time machine, it's not YOUR obligation to DISprove it; it is my obligation to PROVE it. You claim to speak in tongues. Prove it. What's the language? Cue the excuses.

Yeah. Sumbitch witnessed to me and was convincing. In seriousness i blame myself and no one else

I blame WordWolf

That was meaningless. Seriously. You're babbling.

David Oyelowo Anthony Perkins Geoffrey Rush

Jesus told them to make disciples of all the nations. They didn't. TLC is not convinced they didn't follow his instruction. Good lord. You said you wouldn't discuss it with "the likes of" me. Be a person of your word, mk?

bzzzt

Plant a seed, plant a flower, plant a roseYou can plant any one of thoseKeep planting to find out which one growsIt's a secret no one knowsIt's a secret no one knowsOh, no one knows

I said three Beatles were alive AT MOST. That gives you a span of more than 20 years. it's a 90s song. And peppy. upbeat. Not that you can tell from these depressing lyrics

move up. Paul Young is not peppy!

Ernest Borgnine ?

The reason we don't accept "spiritual information" as evidence is as follows: 1. You cannot demonstrate objectively that such a thing exists. Really the list should stop right there. 2. You have no way to objectively evaluate the reliability of the information. Comparing it to the Bible doesn't count because it's the book's reliability that is in question. That would be begging the question (aka circular reasoning). 3. You have demonstrated no means of determining the source of the spiritual information. Is it from God? Allah? Ra? Vishnu? Thor? Satan? Calling it "spiritual information" demands an answer as to its source, which for the sake of presenting evidence you must identify. An objective observer is not obliged to assume the Christian God is any more or less real than any other deity. 3a. You have demonstrated no means of distinguishing between spiritual information and your own predetermined conclusion (aka, made up sh*t). Unless you can address those issues, those who evaluate evidence are under no obligation to put your "spiritual information" on the same plane as actual evidence.

Ascertaining spiritual information means drawing a conclusion and then examining the evidence, tossing out evidence that does not conform to the conclusion you already reached before you started looking at the issue. Calling it "ascertaining spiritual information" is simply an appeal to emotion, trying to frame this fundamentally dishonest tactic in terms that elicit sympathy from fellow believers in opposition to the atheist bogeyman who won't let you get away with using made-up sh*t as facts.

Made perfect sense to me

Before his death Jesus and his apostles were ministers to the circumcision. Matthew 28:19 is post death and post resurrection. In that verse, Jesus plainly tells the apostles to make disciples of all the nations. Given the change in circumstances, and the change in "news," and the change in instructions, it is plain that the gospel they were to preach to the nations would make the nations disciples of Christ... it is improbable that he was telling them to preach the same gospel as previous to his death and resurrection, as the new gospel would at LEAST have to include that information. Not even I, in all my skepticism, would argue that every word Jesus spoke to the 12 during this time was recorded in the gospels. To think that he would tell them to make disciples of all the nations without adjusting the gospel to account for his own death and resurrection defies reason. But even so, once the apostles began carrying out his abundantly clear instruction to preach the gospel to all the nations, it is consistent with the theology of the Bible to surmise they would have received the exact same required revelation that Paul later received. The likeliest explanation consistent with the scripture is that the apostles went as far as they wanted to. Paul gets commissioned when, for whatever reason, the apostles frankly disobey Jesus' instruction by not going further. You asked a question. The Bible gives an answer. You moved the goalposts because you had a pet theory that didn't account for the Bible having an answer that conflicted with it. Your theory has no credible reason Jesus would tell the 12 to preach to all the nations. If he was only sending them to Israel, he would have said so. But in Matthew and Luke he makes his expectations very clear (so does Mark 16:15, if you accept it as canon). In none of those verses does he give the 12 ANY indication that he wants them to restrict their preaching to the circumcision. They didn't. That's on them, but his instruction could not be more clear.

First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLC might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual quality of the argument and contribution to the discussion. [The bulk of this post was deleted as soon as I realized it was off topic. The following replaces what I originally wrote. If you saw what I originally wrote: I stand by it. But it's off topic.] Jesus specifically commissioned the 12 to preach the gospel to the gentiles. They didn't do it. THEN Jesus goes to Paul. Seems to me that if the apostles had done what Jesus told them to do, he would not have needed to commission Paul to do something as specific as the very thing he told the 12 to do. That is an explanation that is completely consistent with what the Bible teaches on every level. It does not insert an extraneous subtext of "first Israel, then etc. It's really not even a little complicated. This is what the Bible shows and tells. Why am I the only one quoting Jesus in this conversation? P.S. To TLC: I have twisted NOTHING and I am sick of you LYING about that. You are NOT entitled to LIE about other posters, so STOP LYING. You keep saying that I'm twisting your words when I am merely holding a mirror up to the weaknesses of your arguments. That you should constantly resort to false accusations against me is becoming tiresome. it only shows how little you have to contribute to the dialogue here.

It's amazing some people even need a Bible with their higher reasoning taking precedence over what the d- book actually f-ing says.

It was a number one song. Not by the Beatles, who had long broken up by then [only 3 were alive at most]

It's peppy. that's not a lyric. It's a description of the song.

You have so many relationships in this lifeOnly one or two will lastYou go through all the pain and strifeThen you turn your back and they're gone so fast...Oh, so hold on the ones who really careIn the end they'll be the only ones thereAnd when you get old and start losing your hairCan you tell me who will still care?

I won a wha?

You have so many relationships in this life. Only one or two will last.

I said LESS tragic. Good night everybody! I'm here all week. #NoPolitics

Whether I believe it happened or not is really not the issue. You believe it did, and you STILL deny it, which is hysterical. You asked for a verse where Jesus commissions the 12 to preach the gospel to the gentiles. I showed you a verse where Jesus tells the 12 to preach the gospel to the gentiles. And you're so butthurt about having an atheist point out such an obvious verse that you would rather deny Jesus said it than admit you were wrong. I'm not the one twisting the scripture into a knot to get Jesus to NOT say what the scripture records him saying to conform to my preconceived notions about what happened next.

The five crosses in a cemetery photo was not a depiction of Calvary. Bullinger left that part out. It's really funny how we were taught not to have our doctrine influenced by works of art, only to have a work of art produced in the 18th century presented as evidence of a conspiracy to keep the truth of how many were crucified a secret from the masses!