Jesus Resurrection

[Jollybear]

Oh my, if you think that a creationist has ever brought up a good point then there may be no hope for you.

Or....just maybe, just maybe, your not very rational or objective. But hopefully theres hope that will change....maybe.

Let's try not to be rude. But then you did fail early when I pointed out at least one of Paul's irrational beliefs. One can tell that he as not all there by his hatred of sex.

Again, thats false and misconstrued. Paul never said do not have sex, or do not marry. Nope. And if you read all his letters, you KNOW thats the case.

I would like to see someone that has some experience in psychology analyze that phobia of his. Perhaps Paul was a latent homosexual trying to keep his own tendencies under control. A lot of Christianities repressive approach to sex can be attributed to him.

Oh boy.....

Look....did paul forget how things play out with ananias but remembered his halucination?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or....just maybe, just maybe, your not very rational or objective. But hopefully theres hope that will change....maybe.



Again, thats false and misconstrued. Paul never said do not have sex, or do not marry. Nope. And if you read all his letters, you KNOW thats the case.



Oh boy.....

Look....did paul forget how things play out with ananias but remembered his halucination?

You lose credibility when you think there might be something to the clear myths of the Bible. If one can't approach that part of the Bible honestly there is no way that one can approach more key parts of one's faith that way. You should not accuse others of not thinking rationally. And distorting the arguments of the person that you are facing only makes it worse for you. I only pointed out the obvious. That Paul was against sex. He thought that if people had to have it that they should get married, but he still opposed the practice. The verse I quoted and then quoted again in fuller context demonstrated that. There are others in the same vein. The man simply was not all there.

 

[Jollybear]

You lose credibility when you think there might be something to the clear myths of the Bible.

No, you lose credibility when you become dogmatic, which you are doing.

If one can't approach that part of the Bible honestly there is no way that one can approach more key parts of one's faith that way.

And my points and questions are honest, and your not addressing all of them, line upon line. Your not building the discussion. Maybe your not being honest?

You should not accuse others of not thinking rationally.

But you can accuse me of it hey?

And distorting the arguments of the person that you are facing only makes it worse for you.

Or.....maybe you distorted mine.

I only pointed out the obvious.

The OBVIOUS huh? Lol. Its obvious paul was not against sex.

That Paul was against sex. He thought that if people had to have it that they should get married, but he still opposed the practice. The verse I quoted and then quoted again in fuller context demonstrated that. There are others in the same vein. The man simply was not all there.

You really wanna dive deeper into that? Do i really need to pin point the spots in pauls words that show he was not against sex? As if enough time hasnt been wasted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you lose credibility when you become dogmatic, which you are doing.

I see that you can't help but to be rude. No, that is not dogma. That is an evidence based belief, quite the opposite of dogma. If the evidence were different the belief would be different. Dogma does not care about evidence.

And my points and questions are honest, and your not addressing all of them, line upon line. Your not building the discussion. Maybe your not being honest?

I have addressed them. I get tired of repeating myself after a while.

But you can accuse me of it hey?

Only because you have demonstrated that inability. You forgot your failure to properly address the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That is just one failure of yours.

Or.....maybe you distorted mine.

Possibly, but I doubt it.

The OBVIOUS huh? Lol. Its obvious paul was not against sex.

So you have never read the work of Paul then.

You really wanna dive deeper into that? Do i really need to pin point the spots in pauls words that show he was not against sex? As if enough time hasnt been wasted.

I already posted one that showed that he was against it. I could show more. You will probably have to reinterpret as you did before to justify your claims.

 

[Jollybear]

I see that you can't help but to be rude. No, that is not dogma. That is an evidence based belief, quite the opposite of dogma. If the evidence were different the belief would be different. Dogma does not care about evidence.

And you dont care to address my further questions about memory. So how do you care about evidence?

I have addressed them. I get tired of repeating myself after a while.

And i had more which you didnt address.

Only because you have demonstrated that inability. You forgot your failure to properly address the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That is just one failure of yours.

Evidence is evidence. Its more extrordinary for a insane person whos lying to die for there claims.

Possibly, but I doubt it.

Dont doubt it. Your human just like all those "crazy" religious people out there.

So you have never read the work of Paul then.

This wastes time.

I already posted one that showed that he was against it. I could show more. You will probably have to reinterpret as you did before to justify your claims.

Ok...looks like ill have to waste time pin pointing. Will do so in a bit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you dont care to address my further questions about memory. So how do you care about evidence?

Ask proper questions and I will address them.

And i had more which you didnt address.

Then bring them up properly. One at a time.

Evidence is evidence. Its more extrordinary for a insane person whos lying to die for there claims.

Nope. Not all evidence is equal. This demonstrates that you do not understand the concept very well. For example in a court of law the lowest form of evidence is that of the eyewitness evidence. People can make mistakes, people can lie. That is why forensic evidence is far stronger. It is far more reliable than people are.

Dont doubt it. Your human just like all those "crazy" religious people out there.

That does not mean that I distorted your views.

This wastes time.

That's true. Reading Paul is largely a waste of time at this point in time.

Ok...looks like ill have to waste time pin pointing. Will do so in a bit.

Oh, so you are going to "waste time".

 

[Jollybear]

Ask proper questions and I will address them.

I was asking proper questions.

Then bring them up properly. One at a time.

Ok....will repeat them.

So paul remembered his halucination, but his memory was fady on his companions hearing a voice and seeing a light and his memory was fady on ananias heard the Lord tell him about pauls halucination and his memory was fady about the Lord accurately telling ananias where paul was located?

Nope. Not all evidence is equal. This demonstrates that you do not understand the concept very well. For example in a court of law the lowest form of evidence is that of the eyewitness evidence. People can make mistakes, people can lie. That is why forensic evidence is far stronger. It is far more reliable than people are.

Witnesses are not nothing though. And they can be reliable. I witnessed someone get stabbed. I know what i saw.

That does not mean that I distorted your views.

You distort my question by calling it improper. Instead of wasting time saying that, just get to answering it.

That's true. Reading Paul is largely a waste of time at this point in time.

Thats not what i meant. I meant telling you your wrong about me not having read pauls letters, that is a waste of time. Responding to that.

Oh, so you are going to "waste time".

Exactly.

 

[Jollybear]

1 corinthians 7

"1Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8Now to the unmarried a and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

And

"25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

29What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

36If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong b and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better. c

39A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God."

Its obvious paul was NOT saying DO NOT have sex.

And i just wasted my time doing the above.

 

[lukethethird]

Very interesting topic

Yes, logic at its finest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was asking proper questions.

If you were asking proper questions I would not have to point out that flaw of yous.

Ok....will repeat them.

So paul remembered his halucination, but his memory was fady on his companions hearing a voice and seeing a light and his memory was fady on ananias heard the Lord tell him about pauls halucination and his memory was fady about the Lord accurately telling ananias where paul was located?

You ignore the most obvious answer. That he was delusional and changing his memory as time went by.

Witnesses are not nothing though. And they can be reliable. I witnessed someone get stabbed. I know what i saw.

They can be reliable but they often do not understand what they saw. Especially when it comes to emotion filled events such as a stabbing. That is why we constantly hear of sentences being overturned on later evidence. People can be fooled. They can really believe that they saw something that they did not see.

You distort my question by calling it improper. Instead of wasting time saying that, just get to answering it.

I try not to waste my time answering improper questions. If there is an assumption buried in your question it is an improper question. The classic example being that of "have you quit beating your wife yet?".

Thats not what i meant. I meant telling you your wrong about me not having read pauls letters, that is a waste of time. Responding to that.

That seemed to be what you were saying.

Exactly.

Good.

 

[Jollybear]

If you were asking proper questions I would not have to point out that flaw of yous.

Or, just maybe you wer dodging answering.

You ignore the most obvious answer. That he was delusional and changing his memory as time went by.

That dont seam consistent to me. Why would he remember details of his halucination, but not his companions and ananias? It seams your pretty selective when its convenient for you to be.

They can be reliable but they often do not understand what they saw. Especially when it comes to emotion filled events such as a stabbing. That is why we constantly hear of sentences being overturned on later evidence. People can be fooled. They can really believe that they saw something that they did not see.

I saw a stabbing. A guy and a girl wer arguing. Another guy butted in. The guy arguing with the woman said "stay out of it". He did for a period, then butted in again. This happened about 3 times. Then the guy arguing with the woman stabbed the but in guy with a knife and yelled in rage "stay out of it!". Then the guy who got stabbed fell on ground and was totally unconcious. The stabber became afraid and kept repeating "im so sorry, i didnt mean it".

That happened. I saw it, i know it. Tell me how my testimony could possibly be wrong?

I try not to waste my time answering improper questions. If there is an assumption buried in your question it is an improper question. The classic example being that of "have you quit beating your wife yet?".

I get that and this is fair, however, with my question was not burried an assumption. It was to get clarification.

That seemed to be what you were saying.

It wasnt. So, you made a mistake because you are human. Saying i must not have read pauls letters, it just seamed so outlandish to respond saying yes i did read them. This is why im telling you that you appear to me as dogmatic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 corinthians 7

"1Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8Now to the unmarried a and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

And

"25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

29What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

36If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong b and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better. c

39A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God."

Its obvious paul was NOT saying DO NOT have sex.

And i just wasted my time doing the above.

I see that you start off with a twisted translation right at the start. Paul believed that sexual relations outside of marriage were immoral. So if one had them one should have them with his wife. There is no affirmation of having sex there. As you see in verse 8 he comes out clearly against sex. There is no other way to interpret that reasonably. His excuse for getting married was that some people can't help themselves. That is not an endorsement of sex. That is like telling a drug addict that it is okay to use pot if he has to get high but not the hard stuff.

And as you see in 26-31 he thought that the end of the world was near. It is quite clear, almost 2,000 years later that he was amazingly wrong here. If he is wrong on such a basic part of his belief why give him any credibility.

By the way, you tried to change my argument from Paul being against sex, which is what I claimed time after time to saying "do not have sex". That is also improper. You should strive to do better than that. People try to change the argument when they know that they have lost.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or, just maybe you wer dodging answering.

No, the only dodge came from you.

That dont seam consistent to me. Why would he remember details of his halucination, but not his companions and ananias? It seams your pretty selective when its convenient for you to be.

Expecting a delusional person to act and reason rationally is not rational on your part.

I saw a stabbing. A guy and a girl wer arguing. Another guy butted in. The guy arguing with the woman said "stay out of it". He did for a period, then butted in again. This happened about 3 times. Then the guy arguing with the woman stabbed the but in guy with a knife and yelled in rage "stay out of it!". Then the guy who got stabbed fell on ground and was totally unconcious. The stabber became afraid and kept repeating "im so sorry, i didnt mean it".

That happened. I saw it, i know it. Tell me how my testimony could possibly be wrong?

No, you could have been correct. The problem is that just because you may have witnessed something accurately, and it would be interesting to hear all sides of the story, does not mean that all witnesses are accurate. It has been found that eyewitnesses are quite often wrong. That is why forensic evidence beasts eyewitness evidence. One can check and recheck forensic evidence. Eyewitness testimony, not so much. In fact in trials defense lawyers often use this to attack eyewitnesses. You have too much of a black and white approach to matters. You should realize that there are not only all shades of gray, but countless colors as well.

I get that and this is fair, however, with my question was not burried an assumption. It was to get clarification.

Perhaps.

It wasnt. So, you made a mistake because you are human. Saying i must not have read pauls letters, it just seamed so outlandish to respond saying yes i did read them. This is why im telling you that you appear to me as dogmatic.

You seemed to say that. At least that was what a literal reading of your post led to.

 

[Jollybear]

No, the only dodge came from you.



Expecting a delusional person to act and reason rationally is not rational on your part.



No, you could have been correct. The problem is that just because you may have witnessed something accurately, and it would be interesting to hear all sides of the story, does not mean that all witnesses are accurate. It has been found that eyewitnesses are quite often wrong. That is why forensic evidence beasts eyewitness evidence. One can check and recheck forensic evidence. Eyewitness testimony, not so much. In fact in trials defense lawyers often use this to attack eyewitnesses. You have too much of a black and white approach to matters. You should realize that there are not only all shades of gray, but countless colors as well.



Perhaps.



You seemed to say that. At least that was what a literal reading of your post led to.

If you misunderstood what i meant about waste of time, then how do you know your not misunderstanding paul?

And verse 8 he does not come out against sex.

 

[Jollybear]

Answer my other question about why the inconsistency? Paul remembers his halucination correctly, but he dont remember right on ananias and his companions?

 

[Jollybear]

Id like to mention acts 26:24-28

Paul is making a defense under chains and hes after telling his experience with the conpanions and seeing jesus appear to him. Then this happens.


"24At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.” (subduction zone this is also your view on paul)

25“I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. 26The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.27King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”

28Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

Notice how aggrippa responded? He did not respond like paul was insane, only festus did.

 

[Riders]

Yes, logic at its finest.

Its hard for me to argue because mostly its being argued from the point that Paul and or the apostles wrote the new testament. I have seen so many video saying that the bible was written really over 100 years later then Christ.
They may not believe Jesus even existed and with the Mythology stand some are taking some are now claiming it was not even written by Paul or the APostles but by Greek Pagans.

I am at the point of believe the mythology stand and I do not believe the bible was written by whom it says it was.

There is also the KJ bible written in 1600s at the museum in the UK and today's bible is so far different then it its unbelievable.

So I don't even actually we are reading the right bible. I don't believe its been copied right even so sense my points and beliefs are not being argued Im just reading.It is interesting.I do not trust the bible as far as I can throw it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Answer my other question about why the inconsistency? Paul remembers his halucination correctly, but he dont remember right on ananias and his companions?

But he was not consistent in how he remembered his vision. You had to spin it to make it look as he did. And the author of Acts was a student of his. That his account of Ananais matches Paul's is not surprising not would it be evidence for Paul.

 

[Jollybear]

Its hard for me to argue because mostly its being argued from the point that Paul and or the apostles wrote the new testament. I have seen so many video saying that the bible was written really over 100 years later then Christ.
They may not believe Jesus even existed and with the Mythology stand some are taking some are now claiming it was not even written by Paul or the APostles but by Greek Pagans.

I am at the point of believe the mythology stand and I do not believe the bible was written by whom it says it was.

There is also the KJ bible written in 1600s at the museum in the UK and today's bible is so far different then it its unbelievable.

So I don't even actually we are reading the right bible. I don't believe its been copied right even so sense my points and beliefs are not being argued Im just reading.It is interesting.I do not trust the bible as far as I can throw it.

Did you get my reply on the video?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Id like to mention acts 26:24-28

Paul is making a defense under chains and hes after telling his experience with the conpanions and seeing jesus appear to him. Then this happens.


"24At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.” (subduction zone this is also your view on paul)

25“I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. 26The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.27King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”

28Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

Notice how aggrippa responded? He did not respond like paul was insane, only festus did.

No, when one observes that the crazy are crazy they quite often deny it.