Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[JesusHChrist]

Lord! Forgive Drich, for he knows not what he does.

[GrandizerII]

So you want atheists to have a Bible study session with you as the teacher/guide? You think too highly of yourself, Drich.

[Minimalist]

Lord! Forgive Drich, for he knows not what he does.

Now that is a perfect example of a non-extraordinary claim!

[Anomalocaris]

Lord! Forgive Drich, for he knows not what he does.

If that's good enough of an excuse to forgive him, we would have to forgive all sorts of nonsentient pathogens, viruses, and vermins.

[Drich]

In Carrier's excellent "On the Historicity of Jesus" he cites this comment about Romans:

2. The Peculiar Indifference of Paul and his Christians

As a psychologist once put it (about Paul's letter to fellow congregants in
Rome, whom he had not yet met and thus can't have shared his own stories
with):

Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a twenty-page
letter passionately wanting to share her excitement about a new teacher.
This letter has only one topic, your friend's new teacher. [But] at the end
of her letter, you still do not know one thing about her teacher. Yet, Paul
presents the central figure of his theology this way . . . . It [seems] impossible
to imagine how Paul could avoid telling one story or parable of--or
fail I to note one physical trait or personal quality of-Jesus. 8


8. Billy Wheaton and Joy Fuller, Hooks and Ladders: A Journey on a Bridge to
Nowhere with American Evangelical Christians (Bloomington, IN: Universe, 2009),
p. 31

I included the footnote for the citation because, unlike your silly-assed bible, Dr. Carrier provides his sources.

Wow, how near sighted of these 'learn-ed' people. Do they not understand the full scope of the teachings of Paul? Do you not understand Paul's full scope of teaching? Romans is a gospel message not an account of Christ's personal life. Luke (As in the book of Luke) was a deciple of Paul, therefore what Luke knew of Jesus, Paul taught. In otherwords the book of Luke was Paul's account of the life and ministry of Christ.

That said, nothing in History says that the book of Romans was the only thing ever sent by Paul to Rome. Matter of fact we know he sent several men (whom he greets in this letter/Also to whom this letter was sent to in rome) to seed a church in Rome..  So What message do you think Paul sent with the men to seed the church at Rome when He himself is sending the gospel?
What message do you think had to be sent inorder for Paul to write 16 chapters about Christ and never discuss who Christ was?

I guess basic logistics/common sense isn't a strong suit of those who you elected to do your thinking for you. Or perhaps the "Doctor" you quoted is just out of their wheelhouse when speaking about Paul, Romans, or the establishment of the church their at that time.

[The Grand Nudger]

We get it, you're a follower of Paul.  Move on ffs..lol.

[Drich]

Christianity = belief in a magic Jewish zombie.

1 Corinthians 15:12-17.  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...;MEV;VOICE

Answer the question in verse 13 = Do the dead return to life?

Paul was speaking to those who believed traditional jewish beliefs on Resurection. The Saducees taught and believed that their were no resurection. Paul is dispelling this idea with a logical train of thought. It starts with the miricals the Apstoles could do. They attributed those works directly to God. Now if they were not of God then God would not support their ministry with the signs and wonders that He did. That means God also supported their doctrinal ministry as well, which included the resurection. Paul is setting up a retorical question, when he asks this question.

Understandably, 'proof' for them' is not 'proof' for us.

So if you can not wrap your mind around the possiblity of a biblical resurrection because you have tainted it with a disbelief in magic and you assoceiate that word only with magic, then lets take a fresh look.

Let's look at just definations/principles of what is being discussed, and apply them to terms you know and can understand.

So ask yourself is it possible for anyone to die (in any way shape or form) and be brought back to life? Well, yes of course they can. we have all sorts of proceedures and technology that help us do this. (Again remember we are looking to see if it is even physically possible on any scale, or do we cease to exist when clinical death occurs.)

Now take your answer and apply it to the defination of 'resurrection' which is to be brought back to life from the dead, and you have your answer is resurrection possible? Yes it is possible, it is a proven fact. You just have to get past your own limitations you place on God, and what is being discussed.

[TubbyTubby]

...because you have tainted it with a disbelief in magic...

Wow. We are such a bunch of dumbasses. Pretty much sums the whole sorry affair up though to be fair, don't believe in magic = atheist. Believe in magic =Christian/Muslim/Hindu......

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[JesusHChrist]

Yup, bunch of skeptical idiots!

Magic is so much more fun to believe in though:

Wizards, cosmic space zombies, telepathy, Holy Ghosts, heavenly realms

OR

physics, chemistry, biology, BORING

[GrandizerII]

Now take your answer and apply it to the defination of 'resurrection' which is to be brought back to life from the dead, and you have your answer is resurrection possible? Yes it is possible, it is a proven fact.

No, Drich, it's not a proven fact. Unless you label awakening from near death experiences as resurrection as well.