MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Esquilax]

You can't seem to admit that this site is full of atheists with bias against Christianity and theists.

Bias is simply this:

"Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

Its the "not having an open mind," part that I object to, which is present in your definition, and in the way you used the term; when you use it to dismiss the viewpoints of others entirely, you're implying that the very fact that there is bias makes their views unworthy of consideration. You're expanding and contracting the definition as it suits you if you use it the way you did, and then act as though you're only using bias as a synonym for "having a position on an issue," when you get upbraided on the fact that you can't possibly have the information to use the word as you did in the first place. You're equivocating.

If you just wanted to use "bias" meaning "has a non-neutral opinion on an issue," then not only is bias an unremarkable- and in fact, expected - aspect of any discussion, but it also isn't applicable to the conclusions you made and described with the word. When you say "you're all so biased by your anti-christianity viewpoint that it's blinding you to the good arguments of the other side," not only are you guilty of the lazy argumentation I accused you of earlier (because "you're just blind to how good my arguments are!" is itself a bad argument that doesn't get us anywhere) but you're also no longer using bias to mean "having a non-neutral position." You're making an accusation that your opponents have bias in the traditional sense, with an accompanying lack of open mindedness, and a presupposed attachment to their current position... which you cannot possibly know, and are therefore guilty of exactly what I'm accusing you of.

I have no clue why you would take this absolutely indefensible position. Bias exists everywhere, with everybody, to certain degrees. It is perfectly normal for people to be biased to some degree.

I'll stop taking this position the moment you stop equivocating on which definition of bias you're using at any given moment to win arguments.

Here's a fine example of the hate you claim you don't have here:

I never once claimed there was no hate of christianity here. In fact, the very first sentence of the post you were fucking responding to above was, in reference to the atheists here you were talking about: "What they pour out into this forum is, at best, dislike or hatred of christianity. "

Are you even reading my posts? Or are you just assuming you know what I'm saying based solely on my disagreeable tenor, like you're assuming to know the thoughts of the atheists here that you've never met?

[dyresand]

Bill was incorrect, and I say that as a fan of his. Here's why:

I placed the quotes of Paul in a specific order so that you form the train of thought.

Jesus described as Christ and as flesh:

Rom_1:3 about His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,

Jesus was crucified:

1Co_1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness.

1Co_2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and Him being crucified.

This flesh of Jesus Christ died:

1Th_2:15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, also driving us out and they do not please God and being contrary to all men,

Rom_5:6 For we yet being without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Jesus Christ died during Paul's Time:

Rom_5:8 But God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Therefore, the concept that Paul was thinking of Jesus as being some ethereal being existing in some ethereal kingdom just doesn't jibe with the evidence.

That entire concept is not scholarship, but rather a work of fiction.

How would you answer that though. Paul supposedly knew jesus better than the one guy who was with him. And also Paul didn't know jesus was human. That's saying my best friend who i hang out with all the time and then i die then another person goes and says oh i knew that guy very well and know what he did etc. yeah...... it doesn't work like that.

[Free]

Bill was incorrect, and I say that as a fan of his. Here's why:

I placed the quotes of Paul in a specific order so that you form the train of thought.

Jesus described as Christ and as flesh:

Rom_1:3 about His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,

Jesus was crucified:

1Co_1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness.

1Co_2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and Him being crucified.

This flesh of Jesus Christ died:

1Th_2:15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, also driving us out and they do not please God and being contrary to all men,

Rom_5:6 For we yet being without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Jesus Christ died during Paul's Time:

Rom_5:8 But God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Therefore, the concept that Paul was thinking of Jesus as being some ethereal being existing in some ethereal kingdom just doesn't jibe with the evidence.

That entire concept is not scholarship, but rather a work of fiction.

How would you answer that though. Paul supposedly knew jesus better than the one guy who was with him. And also Paul didn't know jesus was human. That's saying my best friend who i hang out with all the time and then i die then another person goes and says oh i knew that guy very well and know what he did etc. yeah...... it doesn't work like that.

The quotes above clearly demonstrate that Paul knew that Jesus was a human being. If Jesus was not an actual human being, then how could he have flesh, be killed, crucified, and die as those quotes from Paul clearly demonstrate?

Paul never knew Jesus personally. I merely lived during the time of Jesus.

Most of what Paul wrote was the result of one man's bitter reaction to being rejected by the apostles in Jerusalem. His position was basically, "Okay, they won't make me an apostle, so I will go to the gentiles, make my own church, and make myself an apostle. Fuck them."

That's ... pretty much that.

---

You can't seem to admit that this site is full of atheists with bias against Christianity and theists.

Bias is simply this:

"Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

Its the "not having an open mind," part that I object to, which is present in your definition, and in the way you used the term; when you use it to dismiss the viewpoints of others entirely, you're implying that the very fact that there is bias makes their views unworthy of consideration. You're expanding and contracting the definition as it suits you if you use it the way you did, and then act as though you're only using bias as a synonym for "having a position on an issue," when you get upbraided on the fact that you can't possibly have the information to use the word as you did in the first place. You're equivocating.

If you just wanted to use "bias" meaning "has a non-neutral opinion on an issue," then not only is bias an unremarkable- and in fact, expected - aspect of any discussion, but it also isn't applicable to the conclusions you made and described with the word. When you say "you're all so biased by your anti-christianity viewpoint that it's blinding you to the good arguments of the other side," not only are you guilty of the lazy argumentation I accused you of earlier (because "you're just blind to how good my arguments are!" is itself a bad argument that doesn't get us anywhere) but you're also no longer using bias to mean "having a non-neutral position." You're making an accusation that your opponents have bias in the traditional sense, with an accompanying lack of open mindedness, and a presupposed attachment to their current position... which you cannot possibly know, and are therefore guilty of exactly what I'm accusing you of.

I have no clue why you would take this absolutely indefensible position. Bias exists everywhere, with everybody, to certain degrees. It is perfectly normal for people to be biased to some degree.

I'll stop taking this position the moment you stop equivocating on which definition of bias you're using at any given moment to win arguments.

Here's a fine example of the hate you claim you don't have here:

I never once claimed there was no hate of christianity here. In fact, the very first sentence of the post you were fucking responding to above was, in reference to the atheists here you were talking about: "What they pour out into this forum is, at best, dislike or hatred of christianity. "

Are you even reading my posts? Or are you just assuming you know what I'm saying based solely on my disagreeable tenor, like you're assuming to know the thoughts of the atheists here that you've never met?

Okay listen, this bias thing seems to fucking important to you that I will just concede and hand you a fucking cigar, okay?

Fuck sakes dude, get over it. This convo is boring the fuck outta me.

[dyresand]

How would you answer that though. Paul supposedly knew jesus better than the one guy who was with him. And also Paul didn't know jesus was human. That's saying my best friend who i hang out with all the time and then i die then another person goes and says oh i knew that guy very well and know what he did etc. yeah...... it doesn't work like that.

The quotes above clearly demonstrate that Paul knew that Jesus was a human being. If Jesus was not an actual human being, then how could he have flesh, be killed, crucified, and die as those quotes from Paul clearly demonstrate?

Paul never knew Jesus personally. I merely lived during the time of Jesus.

Most of what Paul wrote was the result of one man's bitter reaction to being rejected by the apostles in Jerusalem. His position was basically, "Okay, they won't make me an apostle, so I will go to the gentiles, make my own church, and make myself an apostle. Fuck them."

That's ... pretty much that.

---

Its the "not having an open mind," part that I object to, which is present in your definition, and in the way you used the term; when you use it to dismiss the viewpoints of others entirely, you're implying that the very fact that there is bias makes their views unworthy of consideration. You're expanding and contracting the definition as it suits you if you use it the way you did, and then act as though you're only using bias as a synonym for "having a position on an issue," when you get upbraided on the fact that you can't possibly have the information to use the word as you did in the first place. You're equivocating.

If you just wanted to use "bias" meaning "has a non-neutral opinion on an issue," then not only is bias an unremarkable- and in fact, expected - aspect of any discussion, but it also isn't applicable to the conclusions you made and described with the word. When you say "you're all so biased by your anti-christianity viewpoint that it's blinding you to the good arguments of the other side," not only are you guilty of the lazy argumentation I accused you of earlier (because "you're just blind to how good my arguments are!" is itself a bad argument that doesn't get us anywhere) but you're also no longer using bias to mean "having a non-neutral position." You're making an accusation that your opponents have bias in the traditional sense, with an accompanying lack of open mindedness, and a presupposed attachment to their current position... which you cannot possibly know, and are therefore guilty of exactly what I'm accusing you of.


I'll stop taking this position the moment you stop equivocating on which definition of bias you're using at any given moment to win arguments.


I never once claimed there was no hate of christianity here. In fact, the very first sentence of the post you were fucking responding to above was, in reference to the atheists here you were talking about: "What they pour out into this forum is, at best, dislike or hatred of christianity. "

Are you even reading my posts? Or are you just assuming you know what I'm saying based solely on my disagreeable tenor, like you're assuming to know the thoughts of the atheists here that you've never met?

Okay listen, this bias thing seems to fucking important to you that I will just concede and hand you a fucking cigar, okay?

Fuck sakes dude, get over it.

Also Paul isn't some one to be trusted the guy was a known lair. He did so with his own intentions in mind. Ill list out a few of why Paul is a deceiver.
why would you trust anything Paul wrote i mean look at this.

Galatians 1:11-12 (NIV)
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

This meaning he never knew jesus. He never knew he walked the earth and died. oh here is a few more. He claimed to be a apostle 13 times was he no he wasn't.
His apostleship was unrecognized by others. Of the 22 times in the Bible where Paul is referred to as an "apostle", only twice is he referred to as an apostle by someone other than himself! These two instances came from the same person. Not from Yahshua, or any of the original apostles, but from Paul's close traveling companion and personal press secretary Luke. Both accounts are found in Luke's record of the Acts of the Apostles, (chapter 14:4,14). Here Paul is referred to as an apostle along with Barnabas. By this time in the story, Luke would have been very accustomed to Paul calling himself an apostle, and he would no doubt have been in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone, it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record recognizing his apostleship!

No other epistle author in the Bible wrote like Paul. This would be true on a number of levels, but one aspect is of particular interest when we are considering how Paul views himself. He had a way of drawing attention to himself with his usage of personal pronouns. When it comes to how often he uses words like, "I", "me", "my", or "mine", the overall rate in his epistles is almost three times that of his next closest rival. There are a number of reasons why many scholars today believe Paul was not the author of the book of Hebrews. One obvious reason is, in the other epistles credited to him, Paul doesn't hesitate to identify himself along with his supposed credentials. The author of Hebrews is strangely silent on these matters. Many scholars believe Barnabas was the author of Hebrews, but I think Apollos is a far better candidate... but that's a different subject. The point is, no one knows for sure. But Paul certainly couldn't be in the running as the author of Hebrews when one also considers the statistical rate of the personal pronoun usage. The author of Hebrews refers to himself only 9 times, which is approximately 1.3 personal pronouns per thousand words. To help put this in perspective, let's compare the book of Hebrews to the book of Romans. They are both relatively large books of similar length, divided into 13 and 16 chapters respectively. Yet in only the first half of the first chapter of Romans, which is 16 verses worth, Paul uses twice as many personal pronouns as the author of Hebrews uses in his entire book! In the book of Romans, Paul refers to himself 103 times, which is rate of about 18.2 per thousand! That is 13x greater than Hebrews. In 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to himself 175 times, in 2Corinthians 103 times again, and in the relatively short book of Galatians, he refers to himself 69 times which is a rate of 25 personal pronouns per 1000 words!

It should be evident that Paul is at least as concerned with making a statement about himself as he is in communicating what he believes to be the truth about God.

Other than the twelve apostles who spent three and a half years with Yahshua, no one other than Paul can be identified as having claimed for themselves the title of "apostle". Barnabas was referred to as an apostle along with Paul by Luke in Acts 14:14, but there is no record of Barnabas claiming the title for himself.

Paul was not at all shy about calling himself an apostle. In fact, in nine out of thirteen of his books, he introduces himself as an apostle of Yahshua, and in each case states in some way that his apostleship is by heavenly decree.

Here is the question. Should we automatically believe the testimony of a person who makes grandiose claims about themselves when all we have for confirmation of their claim is little more than their word and maybe a statement or two from their best friend? If so, then we should likewise confirm those like Jim Jones and David Koresh. Unless there is obvious corroborative evidence to support such claims, all of them should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Unlike Paul, a true prophet or apostle does not have to go to such extraordinary lengths to convince the world they are who they say they are. Even Yahshua said that if he alone bore witness of himself, his witness was invalid. John 5:31 And of all the people who shouldn't need to have others testify on their behalf, Yahshua was that person. Yet he had Moses, the prophets, the Psalms, John the Baptist, the Fathers voice from heaven saying, "You are My beloved Son..." and hundreds of those who witnessed his resurrection. Paul had none of these. Though in his conceit, he considered himself to be God's special gift to the Gentiles, and claimed for himself a prophecy that was given exclusively to Isaiah in Isaiah 49:6.

"For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you to be a light to the Gentiles that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth." Acts 13:47

Paul's view of himself as an apostle didn't stop at only claiming to be an apostle. He also did what he could to communicate to his followers that he topped them all. He even had the nerve to belittle the very apostles that Yahshua had called and trained for three and a half years to be his witnesses! Among this braggadocio's self-flattering quotes are the following.

"For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles". ...."As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia." 2 Corinthians 11:5,10

Sometimes, as though he knew he should be ashamed of challenging the stature of Yahshua's 12, he would preface his boast with a statement of unworthiness. No doubt he hoped people would embrace him as the greatest of apostles because he was so humble.

"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all...". 1Corinthians 15:9,10

Aside from the fact that it was a lie to suggest the ministry had been split up between Jews and Gentiles ...as though he had exclusive rights to the Gentiles and the 12 were to stay with the Jews..., Paul even had the gall to condescend specifically on Peter, James, and John when he belittled them to the Galatians.

"But from those who seemed to be something - whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man- for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Galatians 2:6,7,9

This is nothing but an arrogant lie. A couple verses later, Paul takes another cheap-shot at Peter. With Peter nowhere around to defend himself, Paul brags to the Galatians how he had determined Peter was a hypocrite, and how he had put him down before the entire church of Antioch.

"But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews played the hypocrite with him so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "if you being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Galatians 2:11-14

Earlier, in Galatians 1:8,9, Paul commanded his followers to consider "accursed" anyone who preaches a different gospel than his. There is little doubt that Paul wanted the Galatians to think this way toward Peter, if not James, and John as well. It is obvious to anyone reading the book of Galatians that Paul was demanding the Galatian church follow no one but him, not even the original apostles back in Jerusalem.

Aside from Paul's incredible arrogance, I also need to point out that Paul himself was the ultimate hypocrite for condemning Peter for accommodating Gentiles when he was around Gentiles and acting like a Jew around Jews. Here is what he claimed to do, and commanded the Corinthians to do as well.

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without the law as without law... that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1Corinthians 9:19-22

"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 1Corinthians 10:31-33

When Paul says, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" we should do as he says... because in no way did he imitate Yahshua! Can anyone imagine Yahshua playing chameleon and saying anything like "I have become all things to all men" or "I please all men in all things"?

So here we have Paul, claiming to be greater than any other apostle, belittling Peter, James, and John by saying they only "seemed" to be pillars of the church, and that they "added nothing" to him. Then he brags about how he told off Peter... calling him a hypocrite, and he subtly curses the apostles by telling the Galatians to consider accursed anyone who differs with him. All this, while in fact, he was being the greatest hypocrite of all! The superstitious belief that Paul's words are infallible is so thick that people can't see the forest for all the trees that are in the way! If anyone else had even begun to do and say the things that Paul did, we would have recognized their incredible conceit and rejected them a long time ago. Here is something relevant that Solomon said.

"Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips." Proverbs 27:2

source :: Common Sense :: Bible :: http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm ::

if you pick a guy to prove that jesus existed Paul isn't your guy. Considering how he tried to make himself out to be more important than jesus yeah something is wrong with that. (so mod hat wont go on its blue)

[Cyberman]

I felt it was unwarranted, just something to do so you can say you fucked with me.

While you are of course entitled to your feelings, you are not entitled to project them onto us. I won't apologise that you are not privy to Staff deliberations; the plain fact of the matter is that the decision was made by a consensus of Staff for reasons already stated. All Staff discussion is a matter of record. As m'colleague Esq has said, nothing of the content of your posts was altered in any way. All that happened was the two threads were concatenated (look it up) into one.

[Esquilax]

Okay listen, this bias thing seems to fucking important to you that I will just concede and hand you a fucking cigar, okay?

Fuck sakes dude, get over it. This convo is boring the fuck outta me.

Yeah, aggressive shittiness is much preferred to just admitting that you overreached with your commentary.

But the intellectual dishonesty of theists is important to me, and I won't be shamed for that.

[His_Majesty]

Why does there need to be Christian apologetics?

To combat critics, skeptics, unbelievers, attackers, and persecutors of the Christian faith.

First of all, can your god not defend himself? He must not be that great a god if he must rely upon his followers to defend him.

Actually, he doesn't...the Bible states that we can clearly see the evidence of God based on everything that has been made, you know, like human life, the universe, stuff like that (Romans 1:20)...and if that isn't enough, then you have apologetic warriors like myself out there on the forefront providing what I'd like to call the "voice of reason" on behalf of the Kingdom of God. And if that doesn't work, then, well, it just wasn't meant to be.

Secondly, if the bible is as full of wisdom and absolute universal truth as its blind adherents claim, then why does what is written in it need to be defended?

Why does it need to be attacked, in that case? We are not out there defending it just to defend it, we are defending it because it is under constant attack.

Can it not stand up to tests of skepticism all on its own?

The evidence is there, the apologists job is to present the evidence.

---

I don't know that guy from Adam's housecat. I came to my atheism using my own faculties of reasoning.

Did you say "I came to my atheism using my own fallacious reasoning"?

That's what I got out of it

[Free]

The quotes above clearly demonstrate that Paul knew that Jesus was a human being. If Jesus was not an actual human being, then how could he have flesh, be killed, crucified, and die as those quotes from Paul clearly demonstrate?

Paul never knew Jesus personally. I merely lived during the time of Jesus.

Most of what Paul wrote was the result of one man's bitter reaction to being rejected by the apostles in Jerusalem. His position was basically, "Okay, they won't make me an apostle, so I will go to the gentiles, make my own church, and make myself an apostle. Fuck them."

That's ... pretty much that.

Also Paul isn't some one to be trusted the guy was a known lair. He did so with his own intentions in mind. Ill list out a few of why Paul is a deceiver.
why would you trust anything Paul wrote i mean look at this.

Galatians 1:11-12 (NIV)
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

He never knew he walked the earth and died.

You cannot reach this conclusion based upon that quote of Paul alone. It does not say that Paul didn't know that Jesus never walked the earth. It merely says that Paul was receiving revelation from Jesus Christ.

He clearly says elsewhere that Jesus was born in the flesh, and was crucified and died. When he says he's receiving revelation, he is claiming to be in direct contact with the spirit of Jesus.

But you cannot cherry pick verses in an effort to assemble a very improbable and contradictory position.

I would respond to the rest of what you said if it was in any way related to the issue we are discussing, but since it isn't, I have no comment.

[rexbeccarox]

Okay listen, this bias thing seems to fucking important to you that I will just concede and hand you a fucking cigar, okay?

Fuck sakes dude, get over it. This convo is boring the fuck outta me.

You're on a discussion forum. The point is to discuss. If you don't want or know how to do that, I would suggest a new hobby.

[Free]

Okay listen, this bias thing seems to fucking important to you that I will just concede and hand you a fucking cigar, okay?

Fuck sakes dude, get over it. This convo is boring the fuck outta me.

Yeah, aggressive shittiness is much preferred to just admitting that you overreached with your commentary.

But the intellectual dishonesty of theists is important to me, and I won't be shamed for that.

What would be more intellectually honest is you admitting that I had not poisoned the well when Stimbo said I did right HERE, in which he took a partial quote of me HERE, and which you responded to right HERE, in which you replied with "Hey look, turns out he needed a whole lot more well poison!"

Since I hadn't poisoned the well at the beginning of that conversation with Stimbo, where do you come off by lying that I am adding "more?"

How the fuck do you add "more" to nothing?

Now, let's see a little intellectual honesty from an atheist for a change, okay? Maybe then i will start trusting things you say, but until then, I simply don't.