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

[Esquilax]

[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]

[dyresand]

[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]