41 posts
Hey Tripper, I'm quoting you here.
Reading this discussion, it's clear that the history-based, scholarly tradition of studying the bible isn't something that the people in the "Paul knew Jesus and all the gospels agree" church are real fans of, because they'd rather accept their unsupported-by-facts take that those things are true.
Read 1 Corinthians 15 verses 1- 8 (at least). Read the KJV. Assuming you know this is written by Paul, how does this address your statement above? Your implication of course being that people who believe that Paul met Jesus are in the "beliefs unsupported by facts" category. Just wondering... if Paul himself says that he met Jesus, what are your "facts" that prove that he didn't? This goes with my question in the other thread as well. If multiple people say "I saw something" what "facts" do you have 2,000 years later to prove they didnt? Are your "facts" based on Jesus not meeting Paul before he died? Paul doesn't say here that he did. He said he met him AFTER the resurrection. Just wondering what "facts" there are to disprove this. Please enlighten me.
Hook, stay on topic if you can. ;D
If I say I have a horse with 8 legs it's up to me to prove that, not you to prove it doesn't exist.
First, I'd like to know Paul existed and was sane. Then I'd like to see evidence that Jesus existed first, and rose from the dead second. The Bible doesn't prove anyone rose from the dead, and flew up in the sky to live with his father, whom no one has ever seen, unless you think that they are one in the same.
What are your top 5 reasons for believing Jesus rose from the dead?
Thats on topic, again.
Your such a funny little dude.
;D
First of all, you can be excused from the conversation. Tripper made a remark about Paul not knowing Jesus. I tried to start a conversation regarding this. Your remarks have no place in this conversation, if all you have to say is that it's all fiction. Why would you even waste your time replying if you font even believe either existed? If thats your opinion, why do you even LOOK in the religion threads? If you really believe it's all made up fiction, stop crapping on the threads in this section.
Why the insulting tone again? Unless youre a big fat guy, I'm not little. ;D ;D
DreamTheaterRules — Oct 12, 2011First of all, you can be excused from the conversation. Tripper made a remark about Paul not knowing Jesus. I tried to start a conversation regarding this. Your remarks have no place in this conversation, if all you have to say is that it's all fiction. Why would you even waste your time replying if you font even believe either existed? If thats your opinion, why do you even LOOK in the religion threads? If you really believe it's all made up fiction, stop crapping on the threads in this section.
Why the insulting tone again? Unless youre a big fat guy, I'm not little. ;D ;D
Your dodging my questions that are on topic and excusing yourself from on topic answers by diverting the discussion to trivial bullshit.
You have a problem with people who don't consider the bible to be a learning tool. You look past questioning what you've read, consider it truth, and try to use the same book to validate said truth. Is the author sane? (Paul) Fair question. The guy is claiming to meet a person who died after he rose from the dead. Duh.
Whats your 5 top reason for believing Jesus rose from the dead? What would make you think that's possible? What I think is irrelevant. I'll let you know when I crap on a thread home fries. ;D
Why do you insist on having a discussion based on speculation and impossibilities? Things that have never happened before? Things you can't prove happened to start with? Do you want to talk about what my horse with 8 legs did 14000 years ago? Or maybe what he will be doing tomorrow before your sure if it exist in the first place?
Well, since your so touchy on the subject, have at it with Tripper. I see you don't like having discussions unless they go your way.
Just to clear this up for you though. I am interested in why people believe all this stuff to begin with. Kinda like I said in the other thread. You don't have any answers so it is....pointless to discuss with you.
You assume everything in the bible is true and expect someone to prove it's false, it doesn't work that way. Having discussions based only on assumptions from Howie and the good book is pretty much crap to begin with.
Now go have your discussion and you can add 2 cookies to your bedtime snack. :P
When I get home I will answer how Paul doesn't know Jesus and use nothing but bible quotes to prove it.
Hookbender — Oct 11, 2011If I say I have a horse with 8 legs it's up to me to prove that, not you to prove it doesn't exist.
;D
That's been my position on anything 'god' related (or anything else for that matter) my entire life. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, however if it cannot be proved that it 'does' exist then it does not exist !
DreamTheaterRules — Oct 12, 2011 :) ok
Sorry I didn't get to do this last night. Crazy day and among other things my father was admitted to the hospital last night. Maybe tonight.
I willl tell you now that I only need two sources. Pauls words and Luke's words (in Acts). This is all but too easy. Be forwarned I do plan to use the KJV version in my argument and I will be giving you a small but easy to understand language lesson to drive nails into coffins.
LOL, I ask a simple question in response to a remark made by someone else, and it's an "argument" and we're "driving nails in coffins?"
I'm still trying (making one last attempt) to see if there can be discussions here without insults, and "my source is right, and yours is wrong" arguments. If there can't, there isn't much point, is there? if anyone is paying ANY attention here, I haven't once come in and insulted your (anyone in the group) beliefs, or come in and laughed at you because of what you believe, or, said "you pathetic sheep are all going to hell." I've tried to ask questions and have discussions.
Hook tries to turn every thread into "I demand you answer my questions and tell me why you believe". You guys have effectively killed these threads multiple times. I mean, what really is the point have having "religion" threads, when you've run off everyone that believes in God and it's only non-believers participating? That would be like me participating in "disco rules" threads. I don't believe it, so all I could do is bash and crap on any attempt a legitimate discussion about how disco is king (did I really just say that? ;D )
The funniest thing of all, is how heatedly you guys defend your views on the subject... just like the Christians you constantly make fun of! ;D
DreamTheaterRules — Oct 13, 2011LOL, I ask a simple question in response to a remark made by someone else, and it's an "argument" and we're "driving nails in coffins?"
I'm still trying (making one last attempt) to see if there can be discussions here without insults, and "my source is right, and yours is wrong" arguments. If there can't, there isn't much point, is there? if anyone is paying ANY attention here, I haven't once come in and insulted your (anyone in the group) beliefs, or come in and laughed at you because of what you believe, or, said "you pathetic sheep are all going to hell." I've tried to ask questions and have discussions.
Hook tries to turn every thread into "I demand you answer my questions and tell me why you believe". You guys have effectively killed these threads multiple times. I mean, what really is the point have having "religion" threads, when you've run off everyone that believes in God and it's only non-believers participating? That would be like me participating in "disco rules" threads. I don't believe it, so all I could do is bash and crap on any attempt a legitimate discussion about how disco is king (did I really just say that? ;D )
The funniest thing of all, is how heatedly you guys defend your views on the subject... just like the Christians you constantly make fun of! ;D
I'm not trying to be rude. You do seem to be trying to be obtuse. You are reading way to much into the words that I am using.
At any rate I would think it is fair to say that you and I represent two opposite points of view on this particular subject. Since we are presenting two different sides of an issue it is considered, even in laymen's terms, an argument. Kinda like in a court room were you have closing ARGUMENTS. It's not that we are trying to belittle the other it's that we are discussing two opposing views.
Now if it is the case that you are in agreement with me and you feel that Paul didn't know Jesus, at least according to your KJV version, then there is no arguement between you and I. We would have an arguement against the contrary point of view from us.
I would like point out you SEEM to be stating that according to Corinthians that Paul DID know Jesus. SO I am ASSUMING that you think he did. Am I wrong? If so correct me.
Furthermore, as far as MY source being right....my source is YOUR source. I'm going to use YOUR version of the bible to make my case. So this really isn't a case of "{my sources versus yours" as much as it is what I've read in the same book versus what you've paid attention too.
I was just trying to tone things down a notch since some still seem to want to get the conversations heated up, and result to insults when they don't heat. Actually you are correct that I didn't state whether or not I believed that Paul knew Jesus. I was directly responding to Trippers post about people who thought Paul knew Jesus not basing that on facts, and asked what you (he) thought about the line where Paul said point blank that he did. I challenged what he said with a question, and pointed to a direct statement in the Bible that disagrees with what he said.
Hook, stay on topic! LOL
Alright I'm going to first start with the quote that Howie starts this thread with and that is I Corinthians 15:3-8. I know he used 1-8 but I am using what I need.
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also
received, how that
Christ died for our sins
in accordance with the Scriptures,
and was buried.
And he was raised on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures
and he appeared to Cephas
and then to the twelve.
Afterward, he appearred to more than 500 brethern,
most of whom are still alive,
though some have fallen asleep.
Afterward he appeared to James,
and then to all the missionaries .
Last of all, as to one untimely born,
he appeared to me."
I bolded that last little bit to emphasis that according to Paul, he never met Jesus in the flesh. Paul had been born AFTER the death of Jesus. For those of you that are not scholarly bible buffs let me point out some things that I personally think are interesting about this particular passage.
1. This is the FIRST thing ever written about the resurrection of Jesus. It's typically dated around 55 C.E. BEFORE any other Gospel.
2. Paul NEVER refers to Jesus as Jesus in this bit.
3. Christian apologists often argue that the New Testament is authentic due to it's simple narrative style. Yet THIS bit is written in a poetic style. This is to say that OTHER religions are mythical because they use the poetic style. This again is the FIRST account of the resurrection that we have and it is clearly written in a poetic style.
I could go on and on about THIS particular quote because it does much damage to what we know about Paul. At any rate I want to establish that Howie and I agree that Paul NEVER knew Jesus during the life of Jesus and says so himself.
This takes Howie to the idea that Paul knew a resurrected Jesus as in the quoted passage above he "appeared" to me .
The ONLY two accounts of this incident are written by the same hand. Luke writes about Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus 2 times in the book of Acts. What is interesting is that these two accounts are also HIGHLY contradictory and constantly used to show how poorly written the Bible is.
Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." That is Luke telling the story of Paul.
Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." This is Luke writing in Paul's own words. This MAY be Paul's own words. It is commonly understood that Luke was a companion of Paul thus it is possible that Luke finished Acts and Paul may have started it, though commonly Acts is attributed solely to Luke.
Either way lets examine what is SAID. In Acts 9:7 didn't SEE anything. All they heard was a voice. This is NOT a bodily resurrection story. They heard a voice. For all we know they are stark raving mad hearing voices and such. Paul has already claimed in Corinthians that Jesus APPEARED to all these people. Over 500. So why doesn't Jesus appear in Acts 9:7? because he didn't.
In Acts 22:9 again we find that they didn't SEE Jesus. The men merely saw a light. They were out in the desert. Perhaps they were dehydrated and were merely hallucinating? At any rate they didn't SEE Jesus. They saw a light.
Then we get to talk about what was HEARD. In one the men heard the voice that Paul heard and in the other account the men heard nothing. To which is it? Did they hear something or are we simply to take Paul's word for it? IF we take Paul's word for it then they heard nothing and Jesus only talked to Paul in Paul's head. If Paul is only hearing voices then it is safe to say that Paul has NEVER met Jesus.
He never met him as a living being and he never met him as a resurrected being. On whose authority do I have that? Paul's. It's right there in the Bible.
Now for a little bonus round stuff. (This is mainly for Hooky whom will love this, this will make Howie cringe).
There are typically two approaches to defending the idea that there is NO contradiction. The first one claims that "hear" should be translated to "understand" in Acts 22:9, meaning that although the men HEARD the voice they didn't understand it. The second defense says that the word "voice" should really be translated as "sound" in Acts 9:7, meaning that the men heard SOMETHING, but did not know it was a voice.
In Greek the word "akouo" means "to hear". Literally physically or acoustically. BOTH Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 use that word. Akouo does not mean "understand". The word understand in Greek would be "suniemi". This means to understand in the sense of putting things together. Another word that could be used would be "noeo" which means to know. These verbs do have counterparts that are nouns like "sunesis" (understanding), related to suniemi. The word "akouo" has NO noun counterpart that works as a synonym for "understanding".
Let me point out that this does not mean that "hear" cannot be rendered loosely as understand in some special cases. For example, I might say to Howie, "I hear you" which in that case would mean I understand him. I could also say to Howie, "Do you SEE what I mean?" and in that case I am checking for understanding. A word for a physical sense can sometimes be used poetically to refer to a mental process, but the only way to know this is by context. It can't be done with grammar alone. As such, "akouo" always means hear at the literal level, but it might sometimes figuratively be perceived as understand depending on usage in a passage.
There is only ONE instance where the King James Version translates "akouo" as "understand". I Corinthians 14:2: "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth 9akouo0 him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." It seems here in this context that "understand" could be used because, although there is obviously some physical hearing going on, there is ambiguity about how a "mystery" spoken by a 'spirit" could be physically perceived.
AT any rate, I could go on BUT the only people that argue AGAINST the contradiction are evangelicals that use the NIV or a Living Bible. KJV people cannot argue against the contradiction because they are literalists that believe the bible means what it says.
I'm tired at this point it's been a long day and my wife is pulling in to the drive way so I'm going to go eat supper. I think this at least gets enough to talk about.
In summary, Paul NEVER EVER met Jesus in any way shape or form. He NEVER saw a bodily resurrection and he never met JEsus while Jesus was living. Paul says it himself no matter which version of the story written in the bible you want to believe.
DreamTheaterRules — Oct 13, 2011LOL, I ask a simple question in response to a remark made by someone else, and it's an "argument" and we're "driving nails in coffins?"
I'm still trying (making one last attempt) to see if there can be discussions here without insults, and "my source is right, and yours is wrong" arguments. If there can't, there isn't much point, is there? if anyone is paying ANY attention here, I haven't once come in and insulted your (anyone in the group) beliefs, or come in and laughed at you because of what you believe, or, said "you pathetic sheep are all going to hell." I've tried to ask questions and have discussions.
Hook tries to turn every thread into "I demand you answer my questions and tell me why you believe". You guys have effectively killed these threads multiple times. I mean, what really is the point have having "religion" threads, when you've run off everyone that believes in God and it's only non-believers participating? That would be like me participating in "disco rules" threads. I don't believe it, so all I could do is bash and crap on any attempt a legitimate discussion about how disco is king (did I really just say that? ;D )
The funniest thing of all, is how heatedly you guys defend your views on the subject... just like the Christians you constantly make fun of! ;D
Lets take the first paragraph here, DTR. First, what insults? How could a intelligent person who believes in God and all that insult in any way shape or lack of "form", a non-believers beliefs? I'm not sure non-believers have a belief system, so to speak. I promise I could care less if you insult my beliefs in any way. And I wouldn't find personal insult to anything you said about my stance. You should demand your questions be answered. ;D Kinda like I do. ;D In this type forum, I do expect an answer. Not sure how one would demand that answer in this case.
How the fuck is asking a question gonna run you off, or anyone else? When did anyone insult your beliefs?
It's the Christians responsibility to prove their case. So when a Christian asks questions or states his stance on religious subjects, it's from the I believe this to be true side of the coin, unless otherwise stated. I thought it would be interesting to know your 5 or 10 top reasons for believing in God before continuing the conversation so I could evaluate your mental state. I assumed you would be proud to tell me that, being a Christian and all.
DreamTheaterRules — Oct 11, 2011Hey Tripper, I'm quoting you here.
Reading this discussion, it's clear that the history-based, scholarly tradition of studying the bible isn't something that the people in the "Paul knew Jesus and all the gospels agree" church are real fans of, because they'd rather accept their unsupported-by-facts take that those things are true.
Read 1 Corinthians 15 verses 1- 8 (at least). Read the KJV. Assuming you know this is written by Paul, how does this address your statement above? Your implication of course being that people who believe that Paul met Jesus are in the "beliefs unsupported by facts" category. Just wondering... if Paul himself says that he met Jesus, what are your "facts" that prove that he didn't? This goes with my question in the other thread as well. If multiple people say "I saw something" what "facts" do you have 2,000 years later to prove they didnt? Are your "facts" based on Jesus not meeting Paul before he died? Paul doesn't say here that he did. He said he met him AFTER the resurrection. Just wondering what "facts" there are to disprove this. Please enlighten me.
I wasn't making a claim, just an observation that there are people who WANT to believe that "Paul knew Jesus and all the gospels agree" - and reject any scholarly pursuits that dispute those concepts ON PRINCIPLE, without examining a shred of evidence to the contrary (assuming there is evidence to examine). I should have written "...those things are unquestionably true." at the end of that sentence so my point was more clear. Like I said, I wasn't trying to make a claim of truth or falsehood, just express the lack of evidence and the insistence of these believers that they are right even though they don't have support for their claims...
On a different note: Can you admit that just meeting someone once doesn't give you carte blanche to write what that person believes as though you are certain it's true? That's exactly what Paul did. It was his take on what he learned from his conversion...
Provided of course, that any of it is historically true, since there exists no evidence other than hearsay and the scripture that Jesus even existed. He probably did, but there's no telling what is actually true since the evidence is so unbelievably scarce and subjective. That's just a reality I wish more Christians would accept.
I apologize for not expressing myself more clearly and coming off as though I was making a claim of yes/no on the issues. I live in the "I don't know, and you don't either" camp.
Tripper
Craig 5:22...
"After a brief absence, Tripper returns to tear apart the claims made Hooky. Although dealing with lower intelligences than himself, Tripper gracefully apologizes for not expressing himself more clearly."
:D
Furthermore, it would have been real hard for Paul to MEET JEsus and witness a resurrected body when he was BLINDED during the whole experience. Any events that happened betwen Paul and JEsus are clearly in the head of Paul since no one else SAW Jesus that was there or if the did see they only saw a light.
What I think is even MORE interesting is what Paul teaches and how that directly goes against what Jesus taught at times. JEsus said we must not change a single thing about the law and MUST observe the law. If we changed a single tittle or jot we would be hell bound. Paul changes the law immediately and says we don't need to be circumcized. His take is that the LAW is just for the Jews. But Jesus didn't see it that way. The law was what his daddy said it was and his daddy commanded that it be kept. There are other things that Paul differed from Jesus on. More later....I'm at work.
According to Paul he was a dick that persecuted non-Jews heavily. There is what Paul said happened been then there is probably what really happened.
The guys are out in the desert goin to Damascus to persecute some more of them filthy Christians. It's hot and the sun is really bright and Pauls retina's are just burning so bad in the heat of the sun they just shut down and he's temporarily blinded. His buddies probably had some folks in their family that liked this JEsus bloke and got tired of fucking with everyone. So they seized a golden moment. The PRETENDED to be Jesus. What the fuck was Paul going to do? he couldn't see shit anyway. And they were all like, "Dude you need to quit fucking with the Christians are I'm goin to huff and puff and blow your house down." And Paul was like, "Who is this?" And the blokes were like, "Dude I'm Jesus and I'm the son of your God and if you keep fucking with my people I'm going to get biblical on your ass and keep you blind forever and everyone will know that you are a super freak that jerks off all the time." Paul didn't want to ruin his rep so he started preaching Jesus instead. The blokes acted like they didn't see or hear anything....or perhaps they couldn't get their story straight which explains the contradictions in the stories we have today.
;D ;D ;D ;D
CraigBert — Oct 17, 2011Craig 5:22...
"After a brief absence, Tripper returns to tear apart the claims made Hooky. Although dealing with lower intelligences than himself, Tripper gracefully apologizes for not expressing himself more clearly."
:D
What the fuck are you talking about? What claims? That quote has nothing to do with me.
Hookbender — Oct 17, 2011[quote author=CraigBert link=1318354036/0#14 date=1318822786]Craig 5:22...
"After a brief absence, Tripper returns to tear apart the claims made Hooky. Although dealing with lower intelligences than himself, Tripper gracefully apologizes for not expressing himself more clearly."
:D
What the fuck are you talking about? What claims? That quote has nothing to do with me.
I was just having a little fun with one of Trippers comments. The fact that you didn't get it makes it just that much better! :D
Tripper — Oct 17, 2011 On a different note: Can you admit that just meeting someone once doesn't give you carte blanche to write what that person believes as though you are certain it's true? That's exactly what Paul did. It was his take on what he learned from his conversion...
Tripper
I'm glad to see that you can amuse yourself so easily. ;D
I give myself carte blanche to amuse myself whenever possible. ;)
Do you always find yourself funny?
Sure, there's plenty of mirrors in the house to provide the proof! ;D
see you guys have been having fun while I was gone. :) I'll catch up soon.
DreamTheaterRules — Oct 24, 2011see you guys have been having fun while I was gone. :) I'll catch up soon.
Still waiting.....................
I hear the INS knows Jesus... ;)
er, Paul's still a member here, isn't he? just ask him.
ironsheep — Oct 28, 2011er, Paul's still a member here, isn't he? just ask him.
So the real question would be "Did Krankzilla know Godzilla?" :D
He isn't coming back now. You guys are way off topic. :D
Hookbender — Oct 28, 2011He isn't coming back now. You guys are way off topic. :D
What??! But the Bible predicted he would come back! :-?
(Or were you just referring to Howie? ;) :D ;D )
What do Howie and Paul have in common?
Both never really met Jesus. Both were "blind". But me thinks Howie now sees as he cannot seem to muster a retort to FB's Iron clad slam dunk of an answer to Howie's query.
Has Howie given up? Has Howie lost his religion? Is Howie walking with a limp? Stay tuned.......
Howie just lost another parent (in law).
Thats off topic Howie.
Are you serious? If so, sorry for your loss!!! :(
yeah, seriously I won't hijack. Amy's mom just died yesterday. Both our moms, three months apart...
Back to topic now. And thanks! I appreciate that. Rough stretch...
Damn sorry to hear that man!!!! Sorry for the "off topic" comment. I thought I was misunderstanding your post and you were joking around somehow.
My bad!!!!!
sorry to hear that DTR, my condolences to you both. :(
Roy, no, I was apologizing for mentioning it here.
Thanks to to you and Sheep!
Sorry for your loss Howie. Did she get to see the wedding first?
DreamTheaterRules — Nov 03, 2011Roy, no, I was apologizing for mentioning it here.
Thanks to to you and Sheep!
No need to apologize man!!!!! :)
Sorry for your loss Howie.