Raf

I'm not sure how you can look at yourself in the mirror after trying to act as though the verse you cited was relevant to our discussion despite being shown from multiple expert translations and from the usage in other verses that you're just wrong. The dishonesty of your argument is staggering, and the projection is mind numbing. If anyone has shown an unwillingness to look at the data and change his mind, it's not the person who did exactly that. It's the person who refuses to budge no matter how much evidence is presented... even the words of Christ himself in scripture.

You literally lied about the verse being relevant to our discussion.

Every single other translation of Philippians 1:10 New International Versionso that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, New Living TranslationFor I want you to understand what really matters, so that you may live pure and blameless lives until the day of Christ’s return. English Standard Versionso that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, Berean Study Bibleso that you can discern what is best, that you may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, Berean Literal Biblefor you to approve the things being excellent, so that you may be pure and blameless unto the day of Christ, New American Standard Bible so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; King James BibleThat ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ; Christian Standard Bibleso that you may approve the things that are superior and may be pure and blameless in the day of Christ, Contemporary English Versionhow to make the right choices. Then you will still be pure and innocent when Christ returns. And until that day, Good News Translationso that you will be able to choose what is best. Then you will be free from all impurity and blame on the Day of Christ. Holman Christian Standard Bibleso that you can approve the things that are superior and can be pure and blameless in the day of Christ, International Standard Versionso that you may be able to choose what is best and be pure and blameless until the day when the Messiah returns, NET Bibleso that you can decide what is best, and thus be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ, New Heart English Bibleso that you may approve the things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense to the day of Christ; Aramaic Bible in Plain EnglishThat you would distinguish those things that are suitable, and that you may be pure, without an offense in the day of The Messiah, GOD'S WORD® TranslationThat way you will be able to determine what is best and be pure and blameless until the day of Christ. New American Standard 1977 so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; Jubilee Bible 2000that ye may approve the best, that ye may be sincere and without offense until the day of Christ, King James 2000 BibleThat you may approve things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ; American King James VersionThat you may approve things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ. American Standard Versionso that ye may approve the things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and void of offence unto the day of Christ; Douay-Rheims BibleThat you may approve the better things, that you may be sincere and without offence unto the day of Christ, Darby Bible Translationthat ye may judge of and approve the things that are more excellent, in order that ye may be pure and without offence for Christ's day, English Revised Versionso that ye may approve the things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and void of offence unto the day of Christ; Webster's Bible TranslationThat ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ; Weymouth New Testamentso that you may be men of transparent character, and may be blameless, in preparation for the day of Christ, World English Bibleso that you may approve the things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense to the day of Christ; Young's Literal Translationfor your proving the things that differ, that ye may be pure and offenceless -- to a day of Christ, Seems to me, and I may be just a poor old country doctor, that the "things that differ" in Young's translation are consistently things that are Good and Positive according to every other translation. But I'm sure you're smarter than all the Bible translators. Seriously. Dude. Why can't you just admit you blew this one like a 1970s Times Square hooker on a Saturday night with nothing in her purse but a Kleenex? The verse is clearly not talking about distinguishing the gospel taught by the apostles from the gospel taught by Paul. At this point are you even capable of just admitting you got something wrong? Because this conversation has been hijacked by the idiocy you insist upon for long enough. P.S. My criticism is aimed at the quality of your argument, not at you personally, except insofar as you decline to recognize the failure of your argument.

The word for excellent is diapheronta. It shows up twice in the Bible. Romans 2:18 New International Versionif you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; New Living TranslationYou know what he wants; you know what is right because you have been taught his law. English Standard Versionand know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; Berean Study Bibleif you know His will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; Berean Literal Bibleand you know His will and approve the things being superior, being instructed out of the Law, I'll wait for your apology. You're misleading people about the translation of "differ." The "differ" is always an improvement, never, ever a distinction in terms of onw being real and one being a fraud. Go ahead, check every single usage of every related word. Galatians 4:1 4 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. Not better than. Galatians 2:6 6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. Paul is saying here that their status did not make them better in his eyes. So, your apology can be addressed to Raf@yourebustedagain.com

Philippians 1 3 I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. 6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. 7 It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace,[d] both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel. 8 For God is my witness, how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus. 9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. None of this has anything to do with people who preach a different gospel. There is no "different" or "gospel" in the verse cited. It's ok to cite the wrong verse. But to lie about it when you're busted is dishonest. Can't you just admit you were thinking of a different verse? Are you SO lacking in integrity that you can't even say oops?

How does one even begin to address an argument this lacking in honesty?

Uncle Buck MacCauley Culkin My Girl

It isn't twisting. Read it again. There was ONE gospel, the gospel of the kingdom. The delivery of the gospel changed, but the message of the gospel has always been the same: The kingdom. What changed? The audience. Between the gospel period, when it was aimed at the Jews, and the post resurrection period, when it was aimed at all of humanity, the audience changed. What else changed? The circumstances. Now there was one body, Jew and Gentile. Paul was the first to receive this revelation simply because he was the first to act on Jesus' clear and unambiguous instruction to disciple all nations in Jesus' name. He did it. Those who heard him give that instruction in person did not. Philippians 1:10 does not even remotely discuss this topic. Try again. Maybe you meant Galatians 1: 6-7? Yeah, you know what? Any Christian who believes the apostles were only to go to Israel AFTER Jesus specifically told the apostles to make disciples of all nations in His name is absolutely preaching a different gospel (which is to say, no gospel at all). If the apostles were doing exactly what Jesus told them to do, then Paul would not be criticizing those who kept their little sect within Israel. I don't understand why you can't just admit that Jesus told the apostles to disciple all nations in his name when that's exactly what the Bible says he did. It's one thing for ME to say they never received any such instruction. Of course they didn't. Jesus was dead. But you don't believe that. So according to YOU, Jesus told them on multiple occasions to preach the gospel not only to Jews but to all creation, to all nations, to the ends of the earth. And they didn't do it. Paul got more detail in how to spread the message to the Gentiles because Paul actually went and spread the message to the Gentiles [Reality check: Paul was a rival of the earliest Christians, who were a Jewish sect. Paul went to the Gentiles because they were a more fertile (ie, superstitious and easily fooled) audience who didn't know Jewish prophecies the way Jews did. When Jewish Christians saw Paul's success, they struggled to maintain their original identity. The historical Jesus then became Paul's otherworldly Jesus, and Christian history became a fusion of the competing Messiahs. The fusion was imperfect, though. In order to maintain continuity between Paul's Gentile-friendly Messiah and history's Judeo-centric Jesus, the mythological resurrected Christ had to give an explicit instruction that was promptly ignored by the people who knew him best and loved him most. You can't say they were obedient to Christ and that they preached a "different" gospel. Something's got to give. The simplest answer is that they never received any such instruction from Jesus because he was dead, and later followers made up the instruction after Paul effectively won the battle for the identity of Christianity. That's why each gospel quotes Paul (via the Last Supper) but Paul does not quote any gospels. Jesus had lived and died already, but the legends of his earthly life, the raising of Lazarus, the empty tomb tale, the women at the tomb, all those things had simply not been invented at the time Paul was writing].

I detect sarcasm. Fair enough. If so, allow me to address it. I have a problem with the notion these folks could successfully reconstruct the Sermon on the Mount and the incredibly long discourses recorded in John, but they could not quite recall what Jesus, in his resurrected body, specifically instructed them to do, because they didn't have a recording.

Exactly. Like how at the end of Back to the Future, Doc tells Marty he and Jennifer turn out fine. Then in Part II, the VERY SAME SCENE, Doc says the same words but adds a brief pause to indicate he's lying. The writers did not know when they wrote Part I what they would do with the characters in Part Ii. The things we can learn from fiction! It's like Paul saying the risen Jesus was seen by Cephas, then the 12. Some later storytellers inserted the incredible disappearing Mary Magdalene to the story and made one of the 12 a traitor who dies before the resurrection.

For the sake of avoiding loaded language, I'll accept that edit.

All of that is common sense and none of it requires Jesus to say anything other than what the Bible claims he said. "Disciple all nations in my name" meant exactly that. Not a trace of "you guys go to Israel. Ignore the nations I JUST TOLD YOU A SECOND AGO to make my disciples. I'm saving them for Paul." The more natural explanation is that the original Christianity was a Jewish cult and Paul was the first to see fit to spread it to the Gentiles. When Paul's Christianity proved more successful (because Jews who knew their religion knew the scriptures didn't point to Yshuah as Christ), the Jewish Christian cult had an identity crisis. The problem was solved when the gospels were written with full knowledge of Paul's doctrine. Suddenly the Jewish cult always had "Disciple all nations in my name" as part of its mission. The original 12 just couldn't handle it doncha know. So Paul was necessary! Don't you see?

I've made the comparison many times, only without names. Dodge, distract never admit. The sad thing is, there's nothing wrong with the Biblical answer. It's so simple and consistent with the gospels and Acts. Look at how hard Jesus had to work to convince Peter it was ok to preach to a Gentile. He had already told Peter IN PERSON to preach the gospel to every creature and disciple all nations in his name, and STILL he had to send visions. The problem isn't that the instructions were unclear. The problem is they had decades of culture telling them to hold back. Paul was the first one to take "disciple all nations in my name" seriously. Biblically. From the perspective of a skeptic... the disciples didn't follow the instruction because they never received it. Jesus was dead. But Biblically, he did give them that direct, unambiguous order. And the simplest explanation for their failure to act on his explicit instruction is that it ran counter to their entire lives as Jews. It is NOT that Jesus sent the 12 to Israel and Paul to the .Gentiles. Jesus explicitly sent the 12 to the Gentiles and they couldn't process it.

Am i the loudmouth? Please say I'm the loudmouth

Engine: Brutal. Call the fight!

Correct, and books with talking snakes, talking donkeys and magic men who walk on water before flying off into the clouds shouldn't have to be labeled fiction, but here we are

No ancient fictional work labels itself fiction.

oh jesus here we vegetable

5tEvidently you choose to ignore the actual words of Jesus (according to the Bible) because they conflict with your preconceived interpretation. TLC: What's the Biblical proof of x? Jesus: I said x. TLC: But where's the proof? Raf: But Jesus specifically said x. TLC: No he didn't Jesus: Yeah, actually I did. Raf: See? TLC: What do you know, atheist? Raf: But according to YOU he said it. Jesus: I did. Three times. TLC: What do you know, Raf? Jesus: I'm not Raf. TLC: I'M RIGHT DAGNABIT! Raf: Fine.

You realize they didn't DO that in the ancient world, right? Might have saved a TAD of trouble if they did.

"Your view of it" is incompatible with scripture. The scripture you cited is irrelevant to the question you asked. For some reason you seem incapable of letting it go. Jesus answered your question explicitly, according to the Bible. Take it up with him

I'm literally doing nothing other than quoting scripture, while you're stammering but, but, but, but You asked a question. I am QUOTING THE BIBLE'S ANSWER. This is KILLING you, isn't it?

Because there is no scripture to indicate otherwise

This morning I woke up because my alarm went off. Actually, I woke up about an hour early because I had a dream that my alarm went off. Anyway, I got up, prepared lunches for the kids, walked them to school. Now I'm at my office, 25 miles away from home. Made the trip instantaneously via a teleporter in my garage. At some point, hopefully, you stopped believing my story. You didn't prove it wrong. You barely entertained the possibility that it was true. You said, okay, this and that make sense, but that doesn't make the last part true. If someone were to demand that you accept all of the story or none of it, you would laugh. and not politely. Why? Because the first parts of the story are ordinary. They don't require you to believe anything other than a normal person had a normal experience. Sure, it's possible they are not true. But it is also inconsequential and mundane. But once the story became fantastical, your innate skepticism kicked in. Teleporter? You have a teleporter in your garage? No you don't. End of story! If I were to insist that it were true, you would demand proof. My testimony would be inadequate. Signed statements from witnesses might get your attention, but you would still be skeptical to say the least. Give me a belief, and I can find a group of people willing to express it. Ask Marshall Applewhite. Oh, wait, you can't. He and a bunch of his followers killed themselves to hitch a ride on the UFO trailing the comet Halle-Bopp. For real. So even if I got a bunch of people willing to swear that I teleported to the office today, you wouldn't believe it. That evidence would be inadequate for you to draw that conclusion. Ok, so here's my trump card: If I did not teleport to work today, how do you explain the fact that there's no teleporter in my garage right now? Obviously, the answer is it teleported with me to my office. Go ahead, look in my garage. You won't find a trace of the teleporter. That proves it works! Umm, no it doesn't. You're asking me to prove that something left the garage when you can't establish it was ever in the garage in the first place? You need better proof than an empty garage! And it goes on. Point is, when people make ordinary claims, the evidence required to believe such a claim is as mundane as the claim itself. But, as the late (and quite imperfect) Christopher Hitchens used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That a man who led a religious movement in the first century was persecuted for it is not an extraordinary claim. That he was executed by the Roman authorities for claiming he was a higher authority than the emperor or somesuch is, again, not an extraordinary claim. That the execution took place at the behest of legally zealous Jews who were so determined to kill him that they rushed to have it done via illegal, overnight sessions instead of preparing for arguably the holiest day on their calendar defies credibility. Still, could happen. But some evidence would be nice. That this condemned man was buried in a manner atypical of other condemned and executed criminals is perhaps a little less ordinary, but still credible. That the crypt or tomb belonged to a man from a place history does not record makes the claim a tad suspect. But okay. That people would want to go to the tomb any time after the burial to anoint the body with spices is... well, to our ears it seems absurd. We would probably want evidence that such a custom was not unusual in Biblical times. Again, a little bit of an unusual claim, but not improbable. You just need evidence. Not much. A little bit will do. Now, if you want people to believe that this guy got up, was a master of the art of disguise, could teleport in and out of crowded rooms, and flew up into the air after 40 days never to be seen again except in certain pieces of toast, you're going to need some real evidence. "It happened because it's hardwired into our collective imagination" is not even English, much less evidence. His apostles saw him! We don't actually know that from any of the apostles. Not one of them wrote anything making any such claim. But what about Pentecost? We have zero evidence that event ever happened and significant reason to believe it did not -- thousands of converts in a day? Yuhright. Do you know how loud you have to speak, without a microphone, to get thousands of people to even HEAR you, much less hear enough to agree with you to the point of changing religions because you were so persuasive? Just think practically. If you went to the Rock in, let's say 1982, and while you were there a handful of people started preaching that Wierwille was wrong to get rid of so-and-so in the 70s, but if you followed so-and-so you could have an abundant life beyond Wierwille's wildest dreams, how many people do you think would be persuaded? Some, to be sure. But 100? Fat chance. 1,000? Please. I mean, you might persuade tons of people eventually. Look at what Geer pulled off. But it's going to take more than one speech. But what about the empty tomb? What empty tomb? The earliest Christians never venerated or preserved the site of the tomb. Paul never mentioned it. There's no record of the empty tomb being part of the gospel story until decades after it allegedly happened. You want me to account for the fact that Jesus is no longer in a tomb you can't prove he was ever in? Condemned criminals didn't get tombs, and Joseph of Arimathea is a fictional character from a fictional place (the name of which translates to "best disciple"). Fictional characters don't donate their tombs to real people. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence for the resurrection isn't even ordinary -- second hand accounts from people who claim to have learned from people who learned from people who learned from "the 12," the most extraordinary collection of human beings ever to exist before vanishing from history with barely a trace. Were it not for Paul, Jesus would have vanished from history as surely as every other Messianic claimant of the first century.

As cynical as I can be, I would refrain from making such a blanket statement. I think there are some who are sincerely trying to do their best and are not in it for the glory. That's not to say there isn't some ego involved -- a splinter group, by definition, is led by people who think they can do a better job than the group they left. But to declare them unworthy to be ministers... I don't know. It certainly applies to some, but I cannot see where it applies to all. Sincerity may not be a guarantee for truth, but it is a guarantee for sincerity.