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

[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.