I don't know what you are getting so upset about?
who me? upset? naw, just kickin back here after work thinking about peoples motives.
why would i be upset with people who are good with the rhetoric but have a hard time coming into line with secular exegesis? because i was raised by such people, and have seen where the assumptions take people in life? naw. i just like to chat.
Some people say that Paul did not believe that Christ ever walked the earth.
actually, these people are called "scholars", just in case anyone watching was confused.
And this goes agains all his letters that he wrote and our recorded in our Bible.
hmmm, no, must be your bible. i am not so sure about it being "ours". thank you.
He states many times his belief that Christ died and then returned to life and now is in heaven. If he believes he died and was resurrected, /// he had to beleive he was once alive on earth.
the three little red "///" denote what i call a "non sequitur" argument. as in it does not follow. as in, what you say is not the most logical conclusion based on what paul was saying.
Here is one such text, Romans 14:9, there are many others.
here it is, since you didn't quote it:
14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
and we can tell from this that paul was referring to *the christ* as a) jesus of nazarene, and b) earthly?
okaydokee then. perhaps you need to take it easy on the literalness of all this. i dunno, just a thought.
The people who come up with these views that Paul did not believe in the same Christ are completey misinterpreting scripture.
you mean the secular scholars, right? and you say they are "completely misinterpreting" because of romans 14:9? or is this more unsupported rhetoric? either way, i am unconvinced that these scholars are out to lunch, sorry, but you did not get away with that.
And they are confusing people who may not be that knowlegeable in the bible.
people unlike you, hey? lol.
There are all sorts of theories out there but to see if they are true, you have to compare them to the bible itself.
no actually, there are many thing to compare them to. like for example, parsimony. which essentially says that if paul doesn't refer to an earthly jesus, then instead of assuming that he was, it would be more economical (parsimonious) to assume he was speaking of something else.
The Bible whether you believe in it or not, is the book that most Christians base their faith on. So if you want to become familiar with those beliefs, you look into that book.
oh, no, actually lilly, i used to be a christian. i am not looking to become more familiar with xian ideas. i am looking to become more familiar with parsimonious ideas supported by the work of "people" (scholars) who do not have their "faith" on the line by what they discover in exegesis.
And I stand by my statement that anyone saying that Paul did not believe in the same Christ, born of God and Mary, who died for our sins,
actually, i am not sinful. you must be projecting your beliefs onto me. you see, i come from homosapiens that were not related to adam and eve, therefore i have not inherited any sin. if you are related to adam and eve, then sorry for you.
and was raised the 3rd day, and is now in heaven, just like Jesus' other disciples believed, is stating complete rubbish and their own opinions only.
so, not only are their "opinions" "rubbish", but yours are not. well! i stand humbled by your powerful logic in this regard!! my goodness, you have reflected the light of your jesus and the scales have fallen from my eyes!
Paul converted to Christanity after being struck blind,
wow, you really don't know much about xianity then.
paul WAS the first xian, and a real salesman if i might add.
temporarily,
thanks for the clarification teacher lilly. i was wondering how he managed all those long trips totally blind!
and hearing Christ speak to him from heaven.
indeed, this is paul's story. you say the christ is anthropomorphic. i say the christ is cosmic consciousness. you say potato, i say bannana.
He was then healed by a Christian and tuaght about Christ.
paul's revelation was direct, intuitive and estatic. he didn't need a so-called christian to teach him anything. he already knew what he needed to know.
This event was a real event and changed Pauls life forever.
really? because he says so? and because you say so? well then, i should really learn to know my place in these regards. it was "real" because you say it was real.
after frodo was stabbed by the ring wraith's sword, he was changed forever too. but no one is saying it was "real", except for the most faithful of tolkien fans. and you say that this is all real and literal because you have faith it was? or because you have no stake in the results either way? puhleeze.
He lived the rest of his days as a strong supporter and preacher of Jesus and his main message was that he was "crucified with Christ". He even went to his death supporting his belief that Christ was the messiah.
uh, ya. it's sort of like the WTS saying that christ's return was heavenly. the problem is that you assume that paul's christ = jesus of nazarene. who's beating their head against what wall now?
This thread was to show arguements for or against the belief that Christianity borrowed from pagan dying and rising Gods to create a mythical character name Jesus.
no, actually. this thread was yadda's opportunity to jack the board with yadda's implicit assertions about the nature of yadda's religion.
While I have given a lot of evidence supporting my views that Jesus was a historical person and not based upon myths, even citing other writings by non-Christians, most people (except Narkissos) have just tried to pick my words apart and offer no real evidence except to say I am wrong. Where is the evidence to support the other view? I would have gladly discussed.
i wouldn't call it evidence lilly. i might call it an opinion. calling something "rubbish" is not evidence for the other side of the debate.
i would actually call the entire bible as evidence against the historicity of a divine jesus.
If personally you are happy being an athiest, that is fine with me.
awwww, thanks lilly. i'm going to need friday off too.
I have friends of all different backgrounds.
that's nice.
But why do you take it personal if some people wish to remain a Christian?
uh, where did i say that? are you creating a straw man again lilly? do you even know what a straw man is?
You seem very upset because you cannot convince others to believe what you do.
really?
Do you think I am upset because you want to remain an athiest?
no. are you projecting again lilly?
Please do not take my posts the wrong way. I am not trying to convert you Chrisitanity.
oh, i know lilly. i am not worried about me. i am worried about people who take the bible too literally when there is no reason to.
And my quote about people being "haughty" was not directed at anyone on the board, I was speaking about the so-called Bible experts who pick apart every text in scripture and try to create all kinds of wierd theories, such as the one about Paul believing in a different Christ.
who said these "haughty" people made up "weird" things apart from YOU?
I think this thread is upsetting people and the language is getting into words I rather not hear or repeat, so unless anyone else wants to add their views, I am going to stop posting.
k, bye.
I really do not want anyone getting upset or iritated to the point that they have to use the "F" word. Goodness, this is just a discussion, lets not take ourselves so seriously. Peace Lilly
do you mean "fallacy"?
tetra
