The foundations of Christianity

[Elijah John]

It seems to me that the whole foundation of what we know as Trinitarian Christianity
is built on a literal reading of the "fall of man" as told in the Genesis tale of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve eating a "forbidden fruit".

And also on the supposed "vision" of self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

And the theological speculations of the poet and mystic evangelist "John", and folks who take John's speculations and poetry literally.

Seems the whole of what we know as "Christianity" today is derived mainly from these three things, and very little from (what little we know of) the actual teachings of Jesus ie the Golden Rule and the Lord's prayer.

Evidence of this assertion? The Creeds, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed. They have been called "hollow creeds" by some scholars, meaning they have no center. They begin with Jesus supposed miraculous birth, and end with the supposed meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection.

NOTHING in Creeds about Jesus life or teachings.

Is it any WONDER that literalists will make such statements as "Christianity is not about morality?"

Anyway, the question for debate is this, do you think the myth of Eden, Paul's vision and John's theological speculations are a solid or a shaky foundation for one of the worlds major religions?

[2ndpillar]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

Dear jack,
Paul probably was suffering from St. Paul's disease. It is a form epilepsy which causes blindness and other symptoms. It is generally considered a mental condition. http://www.epilepsiemuseum.de/alt/paulusen.html

[Zzyzx]

.

Paul probably was suffering from St. Paul's disease. It is a form epilepsy which causes blindness and other symptoms. It is generally considered a mental condition. http://www.epilepsiemuseum.de/alt/paulusen.html

It is difficult (impossible?) to know the mental and physical condition of people who lived thousands of years ago. One can speculate that Paul/Saul was of sound mind and body, or that he had hallucinations, or that he made up the whole thing. The Epilepsy Museum cited above says:

In old Ireland, epilepsy was known as 'Saint Paul's disease'. The name points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy.

To support this view, people usually point to Saint Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, reported in the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament (Acts 9, 3-9), in which Paul, or Saul as he was known before his conversion to Christianity, is reported to have a fit similar to an epileptic seizure: '...suddenly a light from the sky flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him: ''Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?''...Saul got up from the ground and opened his eyes, but he could not see a thing... For three days he was not able to see, and during that time he did not eat or drink anything.'

Saul's sudden fall, the fact that he first lay motionless on the ground but was then able to get up unaided, led people very early on to suspect that this dramatic incident might have been caused by a grand mal seizure. In more recent times, this opinion has found support from the fact that sight impediment-including temporary blindness lasting from several hours to several days-has been observed as being a symptom or result of an epileptic seizure and has been mentioned in many case reports.

In his letters St Paul occasionally gives discreet hints about his 'physical ailment', by which he perhaps means a chronic illness. In the second letter to the Corinthians, for instance, he states: 'But to keep me from being puffed up with pride... I was given a painful physical ailment, which acts as Satan's messenger to beat me and keep me from being proud.' (2 Corinthians, 12,7). In his letter to the Galatians, Paul again describes his physical weakness: 'You remember why I preached the gospel to you the first time; it was because I was ill. But even though my physical condition was a great trial to you, you did not despise or reject me.' (Galatians 4, 13-14) In ancient times people used to spit at 'epileptics', either out of disgust or in order to ward off what they thought to be the 'contagious matter' (epilepsy as 'morbus insputatus': the illness at which one spits).

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

Dear jack,
Paul probably was suffering from St. Paul's disease. It is a form epilepsy which causes blindness and other symptoms. It is generally considered a mental condition. http://www.epilepsiemuseum.de/alt/paulusen.html

The key word you use is, "probably." In reality, I believe "probably," is too strong a word. I believe the better word to use, is the one the article you cite uses, which was, "assumption." Or, you might say, "it is possible this is what Paul suffered from."

My point is, there is no way for any one to know, however, you would think, if Paul suffered from some sort of mental condition, that it would be extremely difficult for Paul to continue throughout the rest of his life, to remain so consistent. You would also think it difficult for Paul to become the biggest missionary, of a Faith he was so opposed to in the beginning. If you read the letters that Luke wrote, I believe you can determine, Luke was very intelligent, he is even referred to as a physician. Therefore, you would think that Luke, would be able to detect some sort of problem with Paul, and point these problems out to the people Paul was preaching to. However, not only does Luke not point to any problems in Paul that he sees, he seems to be in agreement with Paul. This means, not only would Paul have a mental problem, it would seem Luke did as well, along with all those who followed the teachings of Paul, including the other Apostles, who also seem to embrace him as a fellow Brother.

It is clear, Paul had some sort of problem, he referred to as a "thorn in the flesh," but we are never told what this, "thorn," was. Now, you can speculate all you like, but you will have to admit, it is all assumption!

[Zzyzx]

.

My point is, there is no way for any one to know, however, you would think, if Paul suffered from some sort of mental condition, that it would be extremely difficult for Paul to continue throughout the rest of his life, to remain so consistent. You would also think it difficult for Paul to become the biggest missionary, of a Faith he was so opposed to in the beginning.

Many famous and accomplished people had (are thought to have had) epilepsy – including Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Burton, Alfred Nobel, Vincent Van Gogh, Edgar Allen Poe, and probably Julius Caesar, Sir Isaac Newton, Alexander the Great, etc.

http://www.newhealthguide.org/Famous-Pe ... lepsy.html
http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/pu ... mous.shtml

The argument that Paul/Saul couldn't have accomplished what he did if he was epileptic doesn't hold water.

It is clear, Paul had some sort of problem, he referred to as a "thorn in the flesh," but we are never told what this, "thorn," was. Now, you can speculate all you like, but you will have to admit, it is all assumption!

Agreed. And, you should also admit that it is "all assumption" to maintain that Paul/Saul did not suffer an epileptic seizure at the time of the storied "vision of Jesus."

It is worthy of note that writings attributed to Paul/Saul say almost nothing about the "vision" but that it is described in some detail by whoever wrote Acts.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

You, and I, have had this discussion in the past. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that Paul was even ill, so to add to this word, "GRAVELY,"into the mix certainly seems to be a tactic. So, lets do this again. It just so happened that Paul was completely opposed to this movement called Christianity. He was so opposed to this movement, he was out to destroy it through persecution, even agreeing to have Christians, put in prison, and giving his agreement to the death of Stephen. Out of nowhere, Paul makes an about face, from being absolutely opposed to this movement, to becoming it's greatest missionary.

If I recall correctly, your explanation was, Paul suffered the effects of dehydration. Now, as I said last time, I may understand dehydration having this effect for the short term, however, for it to have such a long term effect, (the rest of his life), then you would expect some sign of mental problems, such as memory loss, erratic thinking, and behavior, etc. However, we do not see this in Paul, in fact we see the exact opposite. What we see in Paul is consistency, and sound thinking, and we have two different references to this. One reference is his own letters, the other is the report of Luke, who by the way, had no interest in his letters being read by millions. Luke was simply writing these letters to a friend, to tell his friend of events he himself had witnessed, or had carefully investigated. So you tell me what Luke had to gain from writing, not one, but two, different voluminous letters to a friend? According to Luke, his aim was simply for his friend to know the certainty of what he had been taught. There is no denying the fact that Paul had a complete turn around, and your explanation, has to be on complete assumption, and does not hold up. On top of this, the only reason you even attempt to come up with an explanation for Paul, is because, you realize you have to, there is no getting around this fact, otherwise why even bother. On top of all of this is the fact that Paul, was trained in the Jewish Law, in fact he was a Pharisee, and according to him, he was far ahead of his peers. What a huge coincidence this is, because this would just so happen to mean, Paul would be the perfect man for this job, of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. Why? Because, he thoroughly understood the Law, and could clearly understand, and explain, how this new movement tied perfectly into the Law, and how Christ was the fulfilment of the Law. Paul does just that, which blows your explanation of, "GRAVELY ILL," out of the water, so try again!

Before I begin, your challenges required a good many referenced responses on my part, so I apologize for the length of this reply.

Acts 9:
[9] And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

Three days without water isn't merely "gravely ill." Three days without water, especially in a hot dry climate, is a CRITICAL CONDITION.

***

Damascus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climate
Its climate is classified as hot desert (BWh) in Köppen-Geiger system, due to the rain shadow effect of the Anti-Lebanon mountains and the prevailing ocean currents. Summers are dry and hot with less humidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus

***

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Dehydration", is thus a term that has loosely been used to mean loss of water, regardless of whether it is as water and solutes (mainly sodium) or free water. Those who refer to hypotonic dehydration therefore refer to solute loss and thus loss of intravascular volume but in the presence of exaggerated intravascular volume depletion for a given amount of total body water gain. It is true that neurological complications can occur in hypotonic and hypertonic states. The former can lead to seizures, while the latter can lead to osmotic cerebral edema upon rapid rehydration."

"For severe cases of dehydration where fainting, unconsciousness, or other severely inhibiting symptom is present (the patient is incapable of standing or thinking clearly), emergency attention is required. Fluids containing a proper balance of replacement electrolytes are given orally or intravenously with continuing assessment of electrolyte status; complete resolution is the norm in all but the most extreme cases."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration

***

Survival skills
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water
A human being can survive an average of three to five days without the intake of water. The issues presented by the need for water dictate that unnecessary water loss by perspiration be avoided in survival situations. The need for water increases with exercise.

A typical person will lose minimally two to maximally four liters of water per day under ordinary conditions, and more in hot, dry, or cold weather. Four to six liters of water or other liquids are generally required each day in the wilderness to avoid dehydration and to keep the body functioning properly. The U.S. Army survival manual does not recommend that you drink water only when thirsty, as this leads to under hydrating. Instead, water should be drunk at regular intervals. Other groups recommend rationing water through "water discipline".

A lack of water causes dehydration, which may result in lethargy, headaches, dizziness, confusion, and eventually death. Even mild dehydration reduces endurance and impairs concentration, which is dangerous in a survival situation where clear thinking is essential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_skills

***

3 days without water - 3 weeks without food.
http://www.ruleof3survival.com/
INFORMATION
Rule of Threes - Survival

Written by Administrator
US Army Survival Manual

In any extreme situation you cannot survive for more than:

3 minutes without air - 3 hours without shelter
3 days without water - 3 weeks without food.

***

The Great Outdoors beta
Questions

For those who aren't familiar with the rule, it's that you can't live more than:

3 minutes without breathing (drowning, asphyxiation)
3 hours without shelter in an extreme environment (exposure)
3 days without water (dehydration)
3 weeks without food (starvation)
http://outdoors.stackexchange.com/quest ... n-for-food

***

Three is Company - (Survival Rules of Three)
In survival you need to know what your body is capable of – Hopefully, after reading this, you will never have to find out the hard way. By remembering the hard fast rules of survival known as the “rule of threes", you will know where to put your priorities in a survival situation.
Here they are in order:
You can survive 3 minutes without oxygen;
You can survive 3 hours without shelter;
You can survive 3 days without water; and,
You can survive 3 weeks without food. (Can you imagine that? Most of us are thinking more like 3 minutes without food… or maximum 3 hours!! )

As for water…while you may be able to last 3 days without water, the truth is, you will probably start to feel the effects of dehydration after only 12 hours or so. Our bodies are made up of water and without it you will not be able to think as clearly.
http://www.survivorjane.com/index.php?o ... ar&Itemid= 64

***

Symptoms
by Mayo Clinic Staff
Severe dehydration, a medical emergency, can cause:

Extreme thirst
Extreme fussiness or sleepiness in infants and children; irritability and confusion in adults
Very dry mouth, skin and mucous membranes
Lack of sweating
Little or no urination — any urine that is produced will be dark yellow or amber
Sunken eyes
Shriveled and dry skin that lacks elasticity and doesn't "bounce back" when pinched into a fold
In infants, sunken fontanels — the soft spots on the top of a baby's head
Low blood pressure
Rapid heartbeat
Rapid breathing
No tears when crying
Fever
In the most serious cases, delirium or unconsciousness
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dehydr ... N=symptoms

Causes
By Mayo Clinic staff
Dehydration occurs when there isn't enough water to replace what's lost throughout the day. Your system literally dries out. Sometimes dehydration occurs for simple reasons: You don't drink enough because you're sick or busy, or because you lack access to safe drinking water when you're traveling, hiking or camping.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dehydr ... ION=causes

Complications
By Mayo Clinic staff
Dehydration can lead to serious complications, including:

Heat injury. If you don't drink enough fluids when you're exercising vigorously and perspiring heavily, you may end up with a heat injury, ranging in severity from mild heat cramps to heat exhaustion to potentially life-threatening heatstroke.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dehydr ... plications

***

The description of Paul's experience while traveling to Damascus is a classic description of the effects of dehydration. You might not like that diagnosis, but it clearly states that Paul was unable to drink for three days. He was confused, experienced a loss of vision and hallucinations. All classic symptoms of dehydration. Which, along with the fact that Acts SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT PAUL WENT THREE DAYS WITHOUT DRINKING, makes Paul's state of dehydration an undeniable fact. It's right there in your book of revealed truths, and you can't change it.

So was Paul clear thinking and consistent? Well Paul's letters are clear and consistent, but these were written YEARS AFTER HIS ILLNESS IN DAMASCUS. Well after he had recovered. Shouldn't we expect to find some residual effects from Paul's "grave" illness. We don't really have access to Paul's medical records, do we? All we have is what Paul tells us in his letters.

2Cor.12
7. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Paul DOES seem to be experiencing some kind of an ongoing issue, a "thorn in the flesh" as he calls it. Those who have experienced severe dehydration and heatstroke are typically sensitive to heat for the rest of their lives, and are susceptible to repeated occurrences of fainting and even seizures. The author of Acts has recorded much of the nature of Paul's "grave" illness while in Damascus for us pretty well. Three days without drinking in a dry arid climate lets us know unambiguously that Paul was very sick in a life threatening way. We certainly have every reason to expect that he would be seeing things in his fevered brain that were not real. Talking to dead people for instance. And of course "the thorn" in his flesh COULD well have been a condition he had prior to his trip to Damascus. But to declare that Paul was not desperately ill in Damascus is pure make believe and a total contradiction of the facts at hand. You may be able to convince yourself that black is really white, and that up is really down, but don't expect anyone else to be convinced.

And so we, in the 21st century, are left to consider the account in Acts openly and honestly. We have a perfectly natural explanation for Paul's conversion from a virulent anti-Christian, to a passionate Christian himself, right in front of us as detailed in the story at hand. Desperately ill and suffering from dehydration induced dementia, Paul is cared for and prayed over by a Christian man. After his recovery Paul is convinced that he has been spoken to by Jesus himself, and he becomes a confirmed life long Christian as a result of the experience. Hardly surprising really, and certainly no miracle. We, in the face of modern reason, logic and objectivity, are presented with two possible conclusions. The first is the very natural conclusion that Paul became a Christian based on his fuzzy impression of what had occurred to him while he was in a sick and delusional state. The second is a entirely supernatural conclusion that assumes that Paul actually had a conversation with a man who had been dead for several years. The question before us here is, which of these two possibilities is really the more LIKELY? And the answer to that question depends on whether one begins from a position of genuine dispassionate objectivity, or from a position of passionately predetermined wishful thinking. Your wishful thinking view of the reason for Paul's conversation to Christianity might serve to satisfy your personal and emotional supernatural beliefs, but it is clearly neither the obvious nor likely conclusion here.

Now lets talk about the authorship of 2 Peter. I am certainly glad you acknowledge the unreliability of Wikipedia. At any rate, I will agree there is disagreement concerning this matter, however, there is a problem even in the article you cite. It claims that those in opposition to a Petrine authorship, date the writing, from 100-150. The problem is the fact that it goes on to give examples of several of the early Church Fathers, either referring to 2 Peter, or demonstrating being influenced by it. One of those listed would be Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, this means, Polycarp, would have actually been alive during this time, and would have known of a new writing, that was not known of before. At any rate, all of this is a bit tedious, you can cite those who favor a late writing, and different author, while I can site those who oppose.

***

Bible.org
The Authorship of Second Peter
I. Introduction

"There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible. For example: Ksemann states that 2 Peter is “perhaps the most dubious writing� in the New Testament.1 Harris says, “virtually none believe that 2 Peter was written by Jesus’ chief disciple.�2 And Brevard S. Childs, an excellent rhetorical critic, shows his assumption when he says, “even among scholars who recognize the non-Petrine authorship there remains the sharpest possible disagreement on a theological assessment.�3

The result of this debate is that 2 Peter is concluded by most critical scholars to be pseudepigraphal literature. But the evangelical world rejects the critics’ claims. Conservatives say this has serious ramifications for the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. The critics, on the other hand, claim this was standard procedure and therefore not dishonest."

II. External Evidence
There is no external evidence prior to Origen (writing in the THIRD CENTURY -TotN) indicating that Peter wrote 2 Peter. Origen himself mentions that there were some doubts as to its authenticity, but he himself did not deal with the problem which seems to imply that he didn’t take the doubts seriously.

https://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter

***

I can keep providing references all day, but the point is that the Wikipedia article is quite correct when it points out that the authorship of 2 Peter is and has been widely disputed. Christians consider 2 Peter to be indisputably authentic because Christians wish it to be indisputably so. This is what I refer to as "Christian mythology" in action. It's declaring "facts" to be true as needed. I know it's inconvenient but the truth is, it's generally pretty well understood that 2 Peter almost certainly was NOT written by the apostle.

But Paul is eventually accepted as one of them. Why? BECAUSE HE BROUGHT THEM MONEY ATTAINED FROM HIS PREACHING AND MINISTERING TO THE GENTILES!

This is comical. First you say, the Apostle's whole motivation, for this whole scam they supposedly dreamed up, only hours after the death of their leader was to make as easy living. You are right to say, Paul gathered money for the Jerusalem Church, but this was simply because the Jerusalem Church was running out of money, and was in need. So, there goes that easy living theory. The evidence you give for the motivation of an easy living for the Apostles, is the passage in Acts which states

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of
their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

I DID say that this proved to be a much more attractive way of life then their previous dangerous and back breaking occupations as fisherman, or that most dangerous of all professions, tax collection. This was hardly their entire motivation for spreading the rumor of the risen Christ however. Jesus had died in the most degraded manner possible for a Jew. "He that is hanged is accursed of God" (Deut.21:23) Since being restored to life could ONLY be regarded as a clear act of God Himself, not only was Jesus clearly NOT the "accursed of God," he was clearly one of God's special chosen emissaries. The story of the "risen Christ" would serve to completely undo all that the priests had intended through the degraded and ignominious way Jesus had been put to death. If enough people could be convinced, the story would also serve to restore some very serious weight of credibility to the movement that Jesus had begun, and which the disciples would now inherit and attempt to carry on with. A crucified Jesus literally represents a dead end. The story of the "risen Christ" on the other hand provides a basis of an entirely new imperative, not to mention a very powerful and compelling passion story. A story that makes for great and dramatic story telling. It in fact proved to be a brilliant move which served to completely reverse all that the Jewish priests had intended. And since it ultimately managed to evolve into one of the world's great religions, it worked far better then the apostles and early followers of Jesus could ever have possibly imagined.

However there is the time frame to consider. Jesus was executed circa 27-30. In chapter 12 of Acts we read of Herod Agrippa's "vexing" of the church, beginning with the beheading of James the brother of John at the hands of Herod Agrippa. Next Peter is imprisoned, but escapes. After his escape Peter finds it prudent to leave Jerusalem and go "into another place." The rest of the apostles basically disappear entirely from the story in Acts at this point as well, although Peter does later reappear, back in Jerusalem. Chapter 12 of Acts ends with the death of Herod Agrippa. Herod Agrippa died in 44 AD. So we can see that for a period of fourteen or fifteen years, the apostles had a reasonably easy time of it. After 44 AD however, things had began to get difficult for the church in Jerusalem, as Paul testifies to in 2Cor.8: (Written circa 55)

[1] Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;
[2] How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.
[3] For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves;
[4] Praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.

There is hostility directed at Paul for his association with non Jews.

Gal.2:
[11] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
[12] For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
[13] And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
[14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

This dispute is never really settled, but was effectively smoothed over by Paul's contributions to the church provided by donations raised from among from those very non Jewish Christian converts he has been criticized for associating with.

Do you even realize what is happening here? Apparently not. After the Day of Pentecost, we are told, about three thousand people were added to the number of believers. Many of these added were not from Jerusalem. Many of them traveled a great distance to be in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. After hearing the message of the Apostles, many of these people, who were added, chose not to return home, and stayed in Jerusalem. This means many, left their homes and family, and were now in Jerusalem without means of support, or homes. Therefore, the funds being collected, was distributed among those with need, we know this because when we arrive in Acts, chapter 6 we read,

Quote:
6 "In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews[a] among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.�

So, as we can see, this would have taken a heavy toll, and there certainly would not be much left over for the Apostles to make an easy living, and this is exactly what happened. The funds began to run dry, and it was because of this, Paul began to ask the Churches that he planted, to gather funds to send in support of the Jerusalem Church. The point is, if all the Apostles were running a scam in order to make an easy living, then you would think, that at least a few of them would have jumped ship, when the money ran low. In other words, you would think, at least some of them would say, "guys, this was fun while it lasted, but I have myself and a family to feed, and I am not going to continue to put myself, and my family at risk, for what we all know is a lie."

Yes. By the late forties and fifties the good times were over, and the church was now struggling. I believe we are actually both in agreement here.

You see, your explanations just do not add up. Now, as I have said before, I realize you have reasons for your unbelief. In other words, I can clearly see you have thought through your unbelief, which is more than I can say for most Christians. Now I am absolutely sure your arguments work well with those Christians, who have not really thought through what they believe and why they actually believe it, but these arguments will not work on those Christians who have actually used their reason. The reason for this is, most thinking Christians, have already thought of the arguments you bring to the table themselves. You seem to believe, there is absolutely no way a Christian could have used their reason to come to their conclusions. I can understand this position, because I am convinced most Christians do not use their reason. But, let me assure you there are those who do, even if they are few in number. This means, there are many false, and reckless teachings of the Christian Faith, coming from Christians themselves, which could possibly mean, that what many thinking, and reasonable unbelievers, and Atheist, have rejected is not Christianity in the first place. If I understand you correctly you were influenced by Pentecostalism, which is an extremely false version of Christianity, and is very easy to refute. In fact I will say, the only way to be involved in Pentecostalism, is to turn your mind off, and this goes for others as well.

Things add up just fine when you consider ALL of the details concerning how things evolved and played out. Things add up especially well when one eliminates the supernatural aspect from the story and allow the story to play out on natural lines.

Now, I have said all of this because, I was brought up in a particular denomination, and as I grew older, like you, I began to question what I had been taught. I was more than willing to reject the Faith altogether. After months of study, and research, that turned into years, I came to embrace the Faith, however, MUCH of what I was taught I have now rejected. My point is, I am not really interested in debating the truth of the Faith. I will, and have done this here, but there are a couple of reasons why I am not interested in this. The first, and foremost reason is, I am not very skilled in this format, as I am sure you can see, it takes me some time to respond when the subject is of such magnitude. Also my belief goes far deeper than I could explain in this format, in other words, there is no way I could give all the reasons here, I would have to write a book, which I am not capable of. Another reason is my work schedule, which does not allow me to respond as I would like, which is the reason for this tardy response. My point is this, if you will go back and look, I believe you will see, I tend to only get involved in discussions having to do with what Christianity actually teaches. In other words, I look for opportunities to challenge people on what their understanding of what Christianity actually teaches. This includes, Atheist, and unbelievers, but I have and will call out Christians on their understanding as well. I attempt to avoid getting involved in the debate of the truth of Christianity, in this format, because the subject is to indepth for someone such as myself to attempt to tackle. Therefore, I look for subjects, that are not so indepth, that I at least believe I can handle with the time I have.

And yet you chose to come to a debate forum. And in all honesty, you are giving a much better accounting of yourself here then most Christians. Your problem is that you are attempting to defend a losing position. Unless you can find a way to make the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus not only marginally believable, but necessarily true, you are in a no win situation. I have shown rather conclusively that the empty tomb, the missing corpse, and the rumor of the risen Jesus can all be attributed to actions taken by the living, just as one would normally expect, as opposed to actions taken by the corpse, which only violates all known experience and observation. Unless you can find a way to demonstrate that the obvious answer could not possibly be true, and that the least obvious claim, the flying reanimated corpse story, is the ONLY reasonable conclusion, you are bringing nothing but empty assertions and unrealistic claims to the discussion. But your doing a really good job of it, all things considered.

At any rate, if you insist on continuing this discussion, I will be happy to oblige, but it will be some time before I will be able to respond.

I am leaving on a trip tomorrow and will not be back until next Tuesday, so take your time. And thanks for the discussion. These are the sorts of discussions I enjoy best.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 14 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Well, first as we talk about the situation with Paul, I believe you have the facts mixed up. The three days without food and water occurred, after the experience on the Damascus Road. In other words, it is recorded, that Paul was traveling along on the Damascus Road, with no problem, when all of a sudden he fell to the ground, and became blind, and it is after this, that he is said to go without food, and water for the days. Now, you have pointed out the extreme climate of this area, therefore you would think that those with Paul, if they had not witnessed some sort of phenomenon themselves, and had only witnessed, Paul falling to the ground, along with the symptom of blindness, that the first thing they would do, is attempt to get Paul water! However the way it is recorded, Paul fell to the ground blind, and after this event, he was led by the men accompanying him, on to Damascus, going without food, and water the rest of the trip, three days. In order for your theory to work, Paul would have dehydrated, which caused the hallucination, and from this point, after the dehydration, he went three more days without water. My point is, you can attempt to make the case Paul was suffering form dehydration, but you cannot use the Biblical account to back that argument up. You see, you can go three days without water, and it may cause dehydration, however, you cannot be dehydrated, and go three more days without water. Therefore when you say,

It's right there in your book of revealed truths, and you can't change it.

It seems to me, I am not the one who has the desire to change things, rather I have read it exactly as it is written. You on the other hand, seem to be changing the order of events as recorded. In other words, if the Biblical account recorded Paul was without water for three days, and then while on the Road to Damascus he had this experience, then you could certainly make the case it may have been dehydration, using the Biblical account. However, , according to the Biblical account the order of events were, Paul had the experience, and it was then that he went three days without water. What I am saying is, you can still make the case that you believe Paul suffered the effects of dehydration, which caused him to hallucinate, but you cannot use the Biblical account to back this up. Now this seems far to easy to point out, and because I know you are a very good thinker, it causes me wonder if you are not simply attempting to get one past me here.

Now, you, and I have had the discussion, concerning Paul's conversion in the past. You, have argued, that the whole of the Christian message was a complete hoax, orchestrated by the Apostles. This seems some what unbelievable, the Apostles themselves would have to know the odds were stacked against them. As I have said in the past, the stealing of the body would be quite a task in itself, especially since, there were those that expected this to occur. But in reality, this would in fact be the easiest part, the hard part would have been the rest of their life. You see it is one thing to tell a simple lie, and then be able to move on with the rest of your life, and hope you never have to address this lie again, but it is quite another to have to live this lie continually, the rest of your life. Not only are they able to do this, there are also things that just seem to occur out of nowhere, that help bolster this movement, against the odds! You agreed with this when you said yourself,

the death of Jesus, which should have been the death nail for this movement is somehow capitalized on by these ordinary men, and against the odds turned into a victory.

This reminds me of a book I read by, Karen Armstrong. If you are not familiar with Miss Armstrong, she was actually a nun, in the Catholic Church at one time. She has an amazing life story. At any rate, she eventually left the Church, and rejected the Faith. She has written a number of books on, history, and religion. In her book entitled, "Jerusalem," as she continues to talk about the Jewish people, she continues to use the phrase, "against all odds." My question is, "when do we get to the point where we say, there has to be something else involved here?"

At any rate, the conversion of Paul, is one of these against the odds, events, and it just so happens, that this event was completely unexpected, and gave the boost to this movement it needed. On top of all of this, it just so happens, Paul is the perfect person for the job at hand. Another huge coincidence, I guess. You see, the dehydration really does not answer all the questions. It may in fact give a possible explanation for the Damascus Road experience, but it does not explain the rest of the story. Paul seems to be in control of his facilities, the rest of his life. He refers to the Damascus Road experience in one of his letters, and also acknowledges his opposition to Christianity, and even acknowledges his consent to the death of Stephen. The point is, Paul seems to understand all the stakes involved. He also seems to clearly remember the events, and he attributes all these things to a miraculous event. So then, you cannot blame his explanation of the events, years down the road to illness. This would mean, the events on the Damascus Road, had an effect on his judgements the rest of his life, and we just do not see this in his letters, or the report of Luke, who according to both, he, and Paul, they spent quite sometime together. As I said, Paul seems to clearly understand all the events, and the facts, and is not in any way erratic in his thinking or behavior, in fact the evidence suggest the exact opposite. The facts are, by his own admission, Paul was opposed to this movement, he then goes from opposition, not to just being a believer, but becoming it's biggest missionary! Dehydration, or any other illness, does not explain this in the least! In the end you have to admit that your explanation of the events on the Damascus Road is based on assumption. I want to be sure again, to point out, that, according to the Biblical account, Paul was not without water for three days, before the event on the Damascus Road, but rather, after the fact. On the other hand, what I believe of this event is not totally based on assumption, it is also based on the report of the one it actually happened too, and also based on the story of Luke, who spent quite some time with Paul, and surely heard the story first hand many times. Therefore, what I believe of these events are based on more than assumption. Now, it is certainly true, the reports from both Luke, and Paul, could be a total fabrication, (LIE), or it is possible they were both deceived, however, which ever it was, their stories certainly remained consistent throughout the rest of their lives. On top of all of this, whatever the explanation for the dramatic conversion of Paul, it certainly catapulted the lie, the other Apostles dreamed up, and against the odds, caused this tremendous lie to become the biggest Faith in the world. The point is, either these were ordinary men, who accomplished extraordinary things, against the odds, or, these ordinary men, were being acted upon, by the extraordinary. Now, if you choose to believe the former, then by all means feel free. I have no problem with this decision, and I do not condemn those who do. What I truly do not understand is why it is such a stretch to believe there are those of us who choose to believe the latter? In other words, there are those of us, who believe there are just too many things that occur, that just so happen to continue to bolster this movement forward, to continue to attribute it to fate, or that they continued to simply, work against the odds. These men claim to be telling the truth, and they attribute their success, to the extraordinary acting upon them. The other explanation is, these ordinary men, continue to do extraordinary things, against the odds?

Now, I do not want to spend a lot of time on the 2 Peter discussion. It seems pointless to me. As I said you can cite those who claim it has a later date, and therefore could not be authored by Peter, while I will be able to cite those who refute this. I stand by the fact that Polycarp would have been alive during this period of time, therefore, it would seem that, 2 Peter, would have, to have been written, during the lifetime of, Peter, or at least shortly after his death, while Polycarp was still a child, in order for it to escape his attention. As I said, I do not want to spend a lot of time on this, and one of the reasons is, I would like to concentrate on your last paragraph. There you say,

And yet you chose to come to a debate forum.

First, I would like to point out, I do not usually see very many post that are as involved, and of the same volume as you, and I, seem to continue to get involved in. Therefore, whenever I get involved in a discussion with you, I have to ignore other posters, and topics, I am interested in. Just like here on this thread, Zzyzx, has posed some questions I would love to answer, but as I said, I have to ignore him, so as to respond to you. If I do not respond to you, I am then accused of avoiding, or not being able to answer the objections, as you have accused me in the past. I highly doubt that you, and I, will settle our differences on this topic, and I will talk more on this in a moment, but because I see little hope, of settling our differences, this causes me to rather spend time where I believe I may be able to make some head way. Which brings me to my second point here. When I came to this site, I thought I would be coming to a site in which I would be debating the Christian Faith, with other Christians. In other words, I was looking at that time, for a place where I would be able to call other Christians out on what they claim to believe. Of course once I arrived, I found that there were not very many Christians here on this site. It did not take me very long to understand why there are not that many of us here. I am convinced it is because, there are not very many Christians, who have actually thought through what they believe, therefore when they are confronted with people with opposing beliefs, who have actually thought through what they believe, the Christian, cannot sustain an argument. At any rate, I tend to attempt to stay focused on challenging, folks on what they believe Christianity teaches. I have done this with, Atheist, unbelievers, and I have also called out Christians here as well, remembering, there are few Christians here to call out. These type of discussions do not tend to be so involved, because you usually are only involved with one topic, however when we begin to talk of defending the truth of the Christian Faith, this involves, the whole of the Bible. There is a huge difference in getting involved in defending the Faith, which can get extremely involved, and there is very little chance of settling our differences, (again more on that in a moment), and getting involved in a discussion of what Christianity actually teaches. At any rate you go on to say,

Your problem is that you are attempting to defend a losing position.

All I really want to say here is, WOW!!! This is an extremely bold statement. It almost leaves me speechless, and it should. It should leave me speechless, because I am clearly dealing with someone who is convinced, they cannot be wrong!! There is a huge difference, in being convinced you are right, and being convinced, there is no way you can be wrong. Your next sentence is very similar, you simply word it differently. Lets look at it,

Unless you can find a way to make the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus not only marginally believable, but necessarily true, you are in a no win situation.

My first question is. What am I attempting to win? I am not attempting to win anything at all. Again, we will talk more on this in a moment. At any rate, according to you, I am in a situation where I have to prove my position to be absolutely, necessarily, true, or I am in a no win situation, and again, I am not sure what it is I am attempting to win? Now lets move unto your next sentence,

I have shown rather conclusively that the empty tomb, the missing corpse, and the rumor of the risen Jesus CAN all be attributed to actions taken by the living, just as one would normally expect, as opposed to actions taken by the corpse, which only violates all known experience and observation.

My emphasis, is on the word, CAN! In other words there is a huge difference in saying you, "have shown rather conclusively that the empty tomb, the missing corpse, and the rumor of the risen Jesus, "IS," the reason, and saying that it, "Can," be. I will not disagree that it, "CAN," be, the problem is, you cannot demonstrate that it, "WAS," the action of the living. You can only demonstrate that it possibly could have been, but, in the end all you bring to the table is assertions, yourself. My position, is not based solely on assertions, and assumptions, rather they are based on the testimony of those who at least claimed to be eyewitnesses. While I will agree you use reason, your position, is based on assertion, and assumptions, you have made, some 2000 years after the fact! You have proved, absolutely nothing. So, you seem to think, I MUST prove my position beyond doubt, while all you have to do is, SHOW POSSIBILITIES. Well, this may be the way you see things, but please allow me to tell you the way I see things.

The way I see things is, I cannot not prove the truth of Christianity, and I am not attempting to do this, and never have, I understand it would be impossible. I am not attempting to win anything here, and I am not attempting to convince you, or anyone else on this site, to change positions. I am also not attempting to convert anyone to the Faith, again, I understand this would be impossible. Therefore, all I am left with, is to attempt to give reasons for my belief.

In the end, this is all you are doing yourself. You are simply giving reasons for your unbelief. I understand your reasons for unbelief, and have no problem with your unbelief. I appreciate the fact that you have at least used your reason to come to your unbelief, and I do not condemn, ridicule, or look down on you, in any way because of your unbelief. I am not angry with, Atheists, and unbelievers, especially, those that have thought through their position. However, I am extremely angry with Christians, who have not used their reason, and then go on to condemn, ridicule, and look down, on those who do not believe. Atheists, and unbelievers, do far less damage to the Faith, than do Christians, who have no idea what it is they claim to believe. I certainly expect, the unbeliever, and Atheist, to attempt to damage the Faith, but I do not expect, nor will I accept fellow Christians doing the same. I have shared this story on another thread, and I think it will demonstrate where I stand.

I stood on the floor of a Christian conference, filled with Christian brothers, and sisters, and opposed sending a letter of protest to Disney World. If you will recall, Disney World, had decided to provide insurance coverage for the patners of their homosexual employees. My question was, "what in the world, do we have to do with Disney World?" I went on to say, "Disney World, does not name the Name of Christ, however, there are many ministries, that in fact do name the Name of Christ, and are preaching a false, and dangerous doctrine, and I would be more than willing to not only send a letter of protest to these ministries, I would also be willing to forbid, any of our members from supporting these ministries.

The reason I bring this story up, is to demonstrate, that I do not, condemn, ridicule, or look down, on those who are not Christians. I do not expect all to believe the Gospel, and I also do not expect those who reject the Gospel, and the Christian Faith, to behave according to my beliefs. On the other hand, you certainly do, condemn, ridicule, and look down, on the Christian Faith. This would not be hard at all to demonstrate, all one would have to do, is refer to your post. So then, if you are this critical of the Faith itself, then I believe we can determine from this, what you actually think of those of us who hold to this Faith. My point of course is, I am in complete disagreement with you, as far as our beliefs are concerned, but I will not allow our disagreements determine what I think of you as a person. The question is, can you do the same? Or is it the case, that if someone disagrees with you, as far as Christianity is concerned, then they are less of a person?

Now, you are extremely good at skating the edge, as far as the rules of this site is concerned, and I will have to admit, that you have not crossed the edge as far as I can see. I want you to know, that I do not take offense in any way to anything you have said. In fact, I appreciate your candidness. Your candidness, helps me out in a couple of ways. First, it allows me to truly understand where you stand. In other words, I never wonder what you are saying, because you say it plainly, not concerning yourself, with the way people may take it. I am much the same way myself, and I really do not understand why people would be offended. Either, what is being said is true, or it is false, why does it matter how it is said? The other way in which it helps me is, it allows me to get some sort of understanding of the person I am dealing with. I tend to believe, a lot of what you do is tactical, in other words, if you attack the beliefs of someone, in reality you are attacking them, if you can attack them personally, this will a lot of times veer the person of topic in an attempt to defend themselves. It also brings emotions into play. When someone allows emotions to get in the way, they usually lose their ability to reason. This is on of the oldest tricks in the book, but it continues to be very effective. However, I am able to read through all of this, and understand the substance of what you are saying. Therefore, continue to say it the way you would like, I take no offense at all.

At any rate, you do seem to be frustrated with Christians. I, not only understand this frustration, I share it with you. My frustration, stems from the fact, that it seems most Christians have turned their reason off, and are motivated simply by how the feel, (emotion). Therefore, although we may be divided over the truth of the Christian Faith, it seems we do share a common frustration.

In the end, there is a major difference between us. You reject Christianity, while I embrace it. I will never be able to prove my position, and I clearly understand this. As I said, all I can do is, give the reason for my belief. I believe, in reality, you are in the same position. In other words, you cannot prove, your position, and you cannot disprove, Christianity. All you can really do is, give the reason for your unbelief. However, I think there may be one other question we need to ask. The question, is not one that I need to ask you, and I do not believe it is a question you should ask me, rather, I think it is a question we can only ask, ourselves. The only one who can truly answer this question is ourselves, when we are alone, with only our thoughts.

The question for me would be. Am I truly looking at the evidence, objectively, or is there some sort of emotional reason I continue to hold on to the belief I have? In other words, do I believe, simply because I have been brought up in the Faith, and want to hang on to the beliefs, of my family, and friends, so that I am not excluded from them? Only I, can truly answer this question. Having said this, allow me to say, I have rejected a good portion of what I was taught as a child, as far as the Faith is concerned. Because of this, I am no longer in the same fellowship with my family, and the overwhelming majority of my friends. Other than my wife, and children, I have absolutely no family in the Church I attend. As far as friends from the Church of my childhood, there is one, and his family, which I consider family. At any rate, I understand that this does not necessarily mean, that I am absolutely objective here, but I think it does demonstrate, that I am not hanging on to what I was taught, simply for emotional reasons.

The question for you would be the same. Are you looking at the evidence objectively, or, is there some sort of emotional reason you have rejected the Faith you were brought up in? Only you, can truly answer this question!

Well, I certainly hope your trip was safe, and enjoyable. Sorry it took me so long to respond.

[2ndpillar]

[Replying to Realworldjack] The key word you use is, "probably." In reality, I believe "probably," is too strong a word. I believe the better word to use, is the one the article you cite uses, which was, "assumption." Or, you might say, "it is possible this is what Paul suffered from."

My point is, there is no way for any one to know, however, you would think, if Paul suffered from some sort of mental condition, that it would be extremely difficult for Paul to continue throughout the rest of his life, to remain so consistent. You would also think it difficult for Paul to become the biggest missionary, of a Faith he was so opposed to in the beginning. If you read the letters that Luke wrote, I believe you can determine, Luke was very intelligent, he is even referred to as a physician. Therefore, you would think that Luke, would be able to detect some sort of problem with Paul, and point these problems out to the people Paul was preaching to. However, not only does Luke not point to any problems in Paul that he sees, he seems to be in agreement with Paul. This means, not only would Paul have a mental problem, it would seem Luke did as well, along with all those who followed the teachings of Paul, including the other Apostles, who also seem to embrace him as a fellow Brother.

It is clear, Paul had some sort of problem, he referred to as a "thorn in the flesh," but we are never told what this, "thorn," was. Now, you can speculate all you like, but you will have to admit, it is all assumption

Dear jack,
Physicians until recently thought bleeding patients was sound therapy, or that an ice pick through the eye was appropriate treatment for some mental problems. As for the supposed writer of Luke and Acts, whose identity is unknown, it is a bit much to think aniyone at that time could diagnose epilepsy, other than note the blindness, visions, and pain. As for Paul being "consistent", that was one thing he was not. He was known for being "all things to all men". As for the apostles embracing Paul, you might want to quote a source other than unknown writers, who appeared to be associated with Paul. James, in particular, was not on board with the teachings of Paul. The other apostles, such as Matthew, simply quoted Yeshua, and the quotes were specifically detailed, and apparently referred to the likes of Paul as "false prophets" (Mt 7). As for the followers of Paul, they would be "manÿ", and their path would lead to destruction.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

Well, first as we talk about the situation with Paul, I believe you have the facts mixed up. The three days without food and water occurred, after the experience on the Damascus Road. In other words, it is recorded, that Paul was traveling along on the Damascus Road, with no problem, when all of a sudden he fell to the ground, and became blind, and it is after this, that he is said to go without food, and water for the days. Now, you have pointed out the extreme climate of this area, therefore you would think that those with Paul, if they had not witnessed some sort of phenomenon themselves, and had only witnessed, Paul falling to the ground, along with the symptom of blindness, that the first thing they would do, is attempt to get Paul water! However the way it is recorded, Paul fell to the ground blind, and after this event, he was led by the men accompanying him, on to Damascus, going without food, and water the rest of the trip, three days. In order for your theory to work, Paul would have dehydrated, which caused the hallucination, and from this point, after the dehydration, he went three more days without water. My point is, you can attempt to make the case Paul was suffering form dehydration, but you cannot use the Biblical account to back that argument up. You see, you can go three days without water, and it may cause dehydration, however, you cannot be dehydrated, and go three more days without water.

First of all, it should be noted for the record that the author of Acts was clearly a Christian himself and was a later follower of Paul the evangelical Christian. As such the author of Acts cannot reasonably be considered to have been personally present with Paul during that fateful trip to Damascus. What the author of Acts has recorded are Paul's recollection and impressions of what occurred during his trip to Damascus when he first underwent Christian conversion. But PAUL WAS THE AFFLICTED MAN! Paul's memories are based on his impressions of what happened to him at a time when he was deathly ill. You also need to understand that dehydration is not necessarily just the result of a lack of access a to water. It's also a symptom of other causes and illnesses'. Those who die of dysentery for example, actually die of dehydration even though they may have all the water in the world right at hand. They die through the inability to retain fluids, which either pass right through or come right back up. And then there is the inability to swallow known as dysphagia, where the muscles of the throat become paralyzed.

***

THE MAYO CLINIC
Diseases and Conditions
Dysphagia
Neurological damage. Sudden neurological damage, such as from a stroke or brain or spinal cord injury, can cause difficulty swallowing or an inability to swallow. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... n-20033444

***

There are numerous causes for dysphagia including stroke and heat stroke. It's impossible to make a certain diagnosis of exactly what was afflicting Paul, but he clearly was desperately ill based on the details at hand. The description of Paul's condition as provided by Acts is of Paul's inability to eat and take in water. And this condition clearly began while on the road to Damascus and his recovery continued for a time even after he had been brought into the city.

It's right there in your book of revealed truths, and you can't change it.

It seems to me, I am not the one who has the desire to change things, rather I have read it exactly as it is written. You on the other hand, seem to be changing the order of events as recorded. In other words, if the Biblical account recorded Paul was without water for three days, and then while on the Road to Damascus he had this experience, then you could certainly make the case it may have been dehydration, using the Biblical account. However, , according to the Biblical account the order of events were, Paul had the experience, and it was then that he went three days without water. What I am saying is, you can still make the case that you believe Paul suffered the effects of dehydration, which caused him to hallucinate, but you cannot use the Biblical account to back this up. Now this seems far to easy to point out, and because I know you are a very good thinker, it causes me wonder if you are not simply attempting to get one past me here.

The main difference between us it seems is your inclination to find supernatural causes where it pleases you to find supernatural causes; in places where I where I see nothing but perfectly natural events with perfectly natural explanations. It may be that in truth you live in a world which is totally dictated by your imagination and your relationship with your imaginary invisible friends, much like my late aunt, who had a running conversation going with an invisible Jesus (invisible to the rest of us), but who she could see perfectly well standing in the corner. So far your posts have been cogent enough that I am not accusing you of being completely delusional. And if you are not completely delusional then you will have noticed that in the real world, the one MOST of us exist in, natural explanations for events VASTLY out number supernatural explanations. In fact many of us have noticed that NO ACTUAL SUPERNATURAL EVENTS CAN BE CONCLUSIVELY SHOWN TO OCCUR AT ALL. Paul came to believe after his grave illness in Damascus, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian man, that the years dead Jesus had come to him and spoken to him. We in the 21st century however, can clearly see that talking to a dead man is unlikely to the point of absurdity. We can also clearly see that, based on the description of his condition and that he was cared for during his time of disability by a Christian man, his complete conversion to Christianity is not only explained, but makes perfect sense. Not only did he believe that he had actually spoken to Jesus, but his sense of gratitude to the Christian man who cared for him must have been intense. No actual supernatural cause is obvious or even necessary to explain Paul's total life change. Paul lived in a time when evidence of the supernatural was all around him, and like virtually everyone else in his age, he fully believed in the supernatural and lived his life based on the acceptance of supernatural influences all around him. We in the 21st century understand however, that things actually happen for perfectly NATURAL reasons. Reasons which can be understood and even turned to our own benefit.

Now, you, and I have had the discussion, concerning Paul's conversion in the past. You, have argued, that the whole of the Christian message was a complete hoax, orchestrated by the Apostles. This seems some what unbelievable, the Apostles themselves would have to know the odds were stacked against them.

Notice your mind set. You find it completely unbelievable that the followers of Jesus would have moved his body and then spread a lie in accordance with their own personal agenda, and yet you have no problem accepting the story that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and flew away. Do you at least see how skewed your sense of reality is? Can you understand just how much intense indoctrination is required to make the most obvious and mundane conclusion appear to be "unbelievable," and the absurd to the point of foolishness conclusion appear to be the obvious choice?

As I have said in the past, the stealing of the body would be quite a task in itself, especially since, there were those that expected this to occur. But in reality, this would in fact be the easiest part, the hard part would have been the rest of their life. You see it is one thing to tell a simple lie, and then be able to move on with the rest of your life, and hope you never have to address this lie again, but it is quite another to have to live this lie continually, the rest of your life. Not only are they able to do this, there are also things that just seem to occur out of nowhere, that help bolster this movement, against the odds!

[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

"YOU HAVE A WATCH," Pilate tells them. "Go ahead and make it as secure as you can." Pilate here is referring to the priest's personal bodyguard, a contingent of the temple police, already right at hand and NOT to any Roman guards, as is so prevalent in Christian mythology. Pilate gives the order for them to go ahead and guard the tomb themselves. He is actually taunting them in fact. And as we see very clearly in passage 66, the priests did just that. The priests SET SEALS, and the priests SET THE WATCH. No mention of Roman soldiers at the tomb is anywhere present in these passages. Not that the identity of the soldiers really matters all that much. Because when the priests reached the burial site there were confronted with a closed tomb. Unable to inspect the tomb for it's contents because of the nature of the high holy day (the Sabbath and Passover recall), the priests took the most obvious course of action. They placed official seals on the tomb to insure that the tomb would remain undisturbed until such time as they could return and inspect it, then they set a guard and departed. The earliest and most discreet time to have returned to inspect the tomb would have been AFTER THE HOLY DAY HAD PASSED AWAY, in the early morning hours of Sunday. All four Gospels are unanimous that the tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning. This tells us something very clearly. THE TOMB WAS ALREADY EMPTY WHEN THE PRIESTS TOOK POSSESSION OF IT! It's known as locking the barn door after the horse is already gone. So now the question becomes, who were the last ones to be in certain possession of the body of Jesus? And the answer is, THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS! Both Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are specifically mentioned as being followers of Jesus and with being involved with taking possession of the body of Jesus. Joseph of Arimathea's brand new hand cut and very expensive family crypt was NEVER INTENDED TO BE THE FINAL RESTING PLACE OF JESUS. These were FAMILY crypts, intended to inter generations of family members. Joseph's tomb was simply used on Friday because the hour was late and it was a convenient ("nigh at hand" to the place of crucifixion) and a private place to prepare the body. When the priests went out and took possession of the tomb sometime the next day, the body of Jesus was already gone, presumably already on route to it's true final destination. We can conclude this to a near certainty because the secured tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning. And because in the real world an empty tomb and a missing corpse are VASTLY more likely to be the result of actions taken by the living, then the result of actions taken by the corpse. So let's have a complete look at the events surrounding the execution of Jesus as detailed by the Gospels, and with references to Acts.



TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM ACTS AND THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES, HERE IS A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE EMPTY TOMB WHICH PROVIDES A COMPLETELY NATURAL EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE MYTH OF THE RESURRECTED JESUS. NO FLYING REANIMATED CORPSES ARE REQUIRED.


***

John 19:
[31] The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
[32] Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
[33] But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

When was Jesus executed? ON THE DAY OF PREPARATION. In other words, on Friday, the day before the Sabbath which was also the time of the main Passover services.

Matthew 27:
[46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
[47] Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
[48] And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
[49] The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

What time did Jesus die? Sometime in the NINTH HOUR, on the day of preparation. Nine hours after sunrise. Approximately 3:00 PM.

John 19:
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.


And so who now has possession of the body of Jesus? HIS DISCIPLES! After receiving permission from Pilate to take possession of the body of Jesus the disciples took the body to Joseph's brand new tomb, because it was "nigh at hand," as a convenient out-of-sight place to prepare the body in accordance with the requirement that all bodies had to be out of sight on the holy day. And they prepared it well, according to John 19:39-40. Joseph's personal tomb was never intended to be the final resting place of Jesus. Also keep in mind, the disciples did not have to "steal" the body of Jesus. The body had been given to them by the Roman governor, who would certainly have received a fat "gift" for his generosity from the rich man, Joseph. The body of Jesus was now in the hands of his followers to do with as they saw fit.

Matt. 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

When did the priests go to Pilate and request a guard at the tomb? Sometime THE NEXT DAY. That would be on Saturday, the holy day. And so the priests went out to the closed tomb, sealed it with seals consisting of cords and wax or clay embossed with an official seal, and then set a guard. But they did not open it to inspect it for the body of Jesus, due to the nature of the day and the prohibition of their own laws. Their actions according to Matthew 27:66 tell us SPECIFICALLY that they were uncertain if the body was still inside. If the priests had known for a certainty that the body was still in the tomb, no seals would have been needed. Posting the guard would have been enough. Being unsure if the body was inside necessitated the placement of official seals, to insure that whatever the condition inside the tomb was, it would remain exactly in that condition until the priests could come back and inspect the tomb for the body. And the earliest that could be accomplished would be the next morning... SUNDAY MORNING. Placing seals on the tomb insured against the possibility of the guards taking a bribe and allowing the body to be taken, since the priests had no way of knowing if the body had even been inside in the first place. Since the priests DID set seals, then clearly they were unsure if the body was inside. And since the tomb proved to be empty the next morning, then OBVIOUSLY the tomb was empty when the priests took possession of it on Saturday, as they were afraid it might be. Concluding that the corpse came back to life and left on it's own is pretty FAR FROM OBVIOUS!

So the priests went out and took possession of a CLOSED TOMB, setting a guard to protect it. But they didn't open it to inspect it for contents. WHY? Because it was the Sabbath, and Passover." The tomb proved to be empty the next morning however, which tells us specifically without need of speculation THAT THE PRIESTS AND GUARDS TOOK POSSESSION OF AN EMPTY TOMB. This is known as closing the barn door after the horse is already gone.

So who was ACTUALLY in possession of the body of Jesus? Well, WHO WERE THE LAST ONES WITH IT?

JOHN 19:
[38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

And the answer would be that HIS DISCIPLES got PERMISSION FROM THE ROMAN GOVERNOR to take possession of the body of Jesus and were therefore the last ones to be clearly in control of it. And the body was legally theirs to do with as they saw fit! We last read of the body of Jesus, in the tomb, being prepared by his followers. Heavily wrapped with ONE HUNDRED POUNDS of aromatic spices mixed into the wrappings. If they had been intending to take the body on a journey of many days, they could hardly have prepared it any better.

Matthew27:
[59] And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

The disciples left the tomb at this point, closing it behind them. Since the tomb proved later to be empty, if only reasonable to conclude that the body of Jesus, now clean and heavily prepared, began it journey to it's final resting place at this point. And where would that have been? As a manner of common practice of that age, Jews traditionally buried their dead with other deceased family members. So, where is the obvious place one would transport a corpse for burial? And that would be HOME. And where was Jesus from? That would be GALILEE!

And where DID the followers of Jesus journey following his execution?

Matthew 28:
[16] "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them."


THEY JOURNEYED BACK TO THE DEAD MAN'S HOME REGION, GALILEE. A week's journey on foot of some 90 miles to the north east of Jerusalem. Presumably the mountain in question would be 1886 foot high Mt. Tabor, which dominates the southern plain of Galilee, and is traditionally believed by Christians to be the site of the Transfiguration. Since the disciples ALREADY HAD POSSESSION of the body of Jesus, and since they had prepared it in such a manner as to keep it from becoming unbearable, if the apostles didn't take the body of their friend home to be buried with his family, one would almost have to wonder WHY NOT? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt_Tabor

Mountain caves were commonly used as burial sites. And we know that the apostles, at least, journeyed back to the dead man's home region right after his death. The dead man's mother also disappears from the story during this period. She is at the crucifixion, but NOT at the empty tomb on Sunday morning. Where do we next pick her up? WITH THE DISCIPLES SOME SIX WEEKS LATER, NEWLY RETURNED FROM GALILEE. (Acts 1:12-14).

So what conclusion can be reached from these facts? First and most important, that the tomb was discovered to be empty, not because the corpse came back to life and wandered away, but because the priests had secured AN EMPTY TOMB. And it was empty because the followers of Jesus had already moved the body. Moved it where? Where did the apostles go immediately after the crucifixion? GALILEE! The dead man's home. They took the body back to his home and his family to be laid in it's final resting place.

Keep in mind that on that Passover weekend Jerusalem was filled with pilgrims for the celebration of the holy day. One million, according to Josephus. That number is almost certainly a vast overestimate, but even a quarter of that number would have been a huge amount of people, moving around inside and outside of the city. With the body of Jesus loaded into an animal drawn cart, and how ELSE would it have been transported, once the group traveling with the body had mixed in with the throngs of people, they were essentially gone. When Joseph and Nicodemus, along with the remaining apostles and some few other of the followers of Jesus who might have been secretly involved, had finished prepping the body they simply packed up and left, loading the heavily wrapped body into the same cart they would have used to transport the body to the tomb from Calvary in the first place, and disappeared out into the throngs of pilgrims, closing the tomb behind them to keep out the unwanted. By Sunday they were just one group moving towards Galilee out of thousands of groups undertaking the return trip home after the celebration. No great trick or slight or hand involved, but no flying reanimated corpse either.

But what of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus? The fact is THEY DON'T EXIST!!! Far from hundreds of eyewitnesses attesting to the appearances of Jesus after his death that Christians proclaim exist we have in fact only five primary sources for the story of the resurrected Jesus: Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as Paul's account in 1 Corinthians.

Paul records in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that the resurrected Jesus was witnessed by "above 500" of his followers on one particular occasion. Paul was NOT HIMSELF present at this "event" however, and no accounts by the "above 500" themselves exist, or have ever been known to exist. Nor are there any other accounts which would serve to support Paul's claim of the "above 500." Paul did not convert to Christianity until some years after the execution of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, and was not a personal witness to any of the events detailed in the Gospels. Paul's account in 1 Corinthians. written circa 55, represents the FIRST EVER mention of the risen Jesus. The first quarter of a century after the resurrection was supposed to have occurred provided not the slightest ripple of comment from ANYONE! And the very people in the best position to have known what occurred, the Jewish population of Jerusalem, never believed in or accepted the story of the "risen" Jesus. They believed that the whole story was nothing more then a hoax perpetrated by his followers. So relatively few were buying the story early on. Certainly not the Jewish population of Jerusalem. But where the story of the man-God come to earth to die in agony for the salvation of mankind, only to rise from the dead, DID have success, was among the gentile population; especially the Hellenic or people of Greek background, who already had such beliefs as an intrinsic part of their religious background. The story of the risen Jesus that Paul and others brought to the Hellenic peoples was the story of the very messiah that they already believed was coming to save the world. And so the belief caught on, and by the second century had begun to had historical impact. But not so among the people who had been present at the time and were in the best position to know what actually occurred. These people were uniformly UNIMPRESSED.

As I already pointed out, in the light of 21st century knowledge we can see that supernatural occurrences are in fact so exceedingly rare as to sustain reasonable doubt as to whether they ever actually occur at all. As long as the story of the resurrected Jesus can be easily explained as rumors and tall tales, actions taken by the living; in other words explained naturally, then there is absolutely no justification for declaring that an unrealistic supernatural event, a reanimated flying corpse, occurred then or ever. Only blind faith and emotional desire can make such a story seem reasonable.

You agreed with this when you said yourself,

Quote:
the death of Jesus, which should have been the death nail for this movement is somehow capitalized on by these ordinary men, and against the odds turned into a victory.

I never said any such thing! The above quote can at best be characterized as paraphrasing what you understood me to mean in your opinion. But in the future you should refrain from paraphrasing and then characterization your paraphrase as a direct quote.

At any rate, the conversion of Paul, is one of these against the odds, events, and it just so happens, that this event was completely unexpected, and gave the boost to this movement it needed. On top of all of this, it just so happens, Paul is the perfect person for the job at hand. Another huge coincidence, I guess. You see, the dehydration really does not answer all the questions. It may in fact give a possible explanation for the Damascus Road experience, but it does not explain the rest of the story. Paul seems to be in control of his facilities, the rest of his life. He refers to the Damascus Road experience in one of his letters, and also acknowledges his opposition to Christianity, and even acknowledges his consent to the death of Stephen. The point is, Paul seems to understand all the stakes involved. He also seems to clearly remember the events, and he attributes all these things to a miraculous event. So then, you cannot blame his explanation of the events, years down the road to illness. This would mean, the events on the Damascus Road, had an effect on his judgements the rest of his life, and we just do not see this in his letters, or the report of Luke, who according to both, he, and Paul, they spent quite sometime together. As I said, Paul seems to clearly understand all the events, and the facts, and is not in any way erratic in his thinking or behavior, in fact the evidence suggest the exact opposite. The facts are, by his own admission, Paul was opposed to this movement, he then goes from opposition, not to just being a believer, but becoming it's biggest missionary! Dehydration, or any other illness, does not explain this in the least! In the end you have to admit that your explanation of the events on the Damascus Road is based on assumption. I want to be sure again, to point out, that, according to the Biblical account, Paul was not without water for three days, before the event on the Damascus Road, but rather, after the fact. On the other hand, what I believe of this event is not totally based on assumption, it is also based on the report of the one it actually happened too, and also based on the story of Luke, who spent quite some time with Paul, and surely heard the story first hand many times. Therefore, what I believe of these events are based on more than assumption. Now, it is certainly true, the reports from both Luke, and Paul, could be a total fabrication, (LIE), or it is possible they were both deceived, however, which ever it was, their stories certainly remained consistent throughout the rest of their lives. On top of all of this, whatever the explanation for the dramatic conversion of Paul, it certainly catapulted the lie, the other Apostles dreamed up, and against the odds, caused this tremendous lie to become the biggest Faith in the world. The point is, either these were ordinary men, who accomplished extraordinary things, against the odds, or, these ordinary men, were being acted upon, by the extraordinary. Now, if you choose to believe the former, then by all means feel free. I have no problem with this decision, and I do not condemn those who do. What I truly do not understand is why it is such a stretch to believe there are those of us who choose to believe the latter? In other words, there are those of us, who believe there are just too many things that occur, that just so happen to continue to bolster this movement forward, to continue to attribute it to fate, or that they continued to simply, work against the odds. These men claim to be telling the truth, and they attribute their success, to the extraordinary acting upon them. The other explanation is, these ordinary men, continue to do extraordinary things, against the odds?

Was Paul's conversion "against all odds?" Paul, the virulent and ferocious anti-Christian became Paul the ferocious Christian evangelist. It seems to have been a part of Paul's nature to go about things in a completely whole hearted manner. I'm sure that his complete reversal was quite a surprise to his friends and family. But given his close-to-death experience in Damascus, and the fact that he was completely and utterly convinced that the "risen" Jesus had communicated with him personally during his affliction, I would actually be more surprised if Paul HADN'T converted to Christianity. I myself probably would not have converted under such conditions, probably, but then I am not already prone to a profound belief in the existence of the supernatural, which Paul most certainly was.

Now, I do not want to spend a lot of time on the 2 Peter discussion. It seems pointless to me. As I said you can cite those who claim it has a later date, and therefore could not be authored by Peter, while I will be able to cite those who refute this. I stand by the fact that Polycarp would have been alive during this period of time, therefore, it would seem that, 2 Peter, would have, to have been written, during the lifetime of, Peter, or at least shortly after his death, while Polycarp was still a child, in order for it to escape his attention. As I said, I do not want to spend a lot of time on this, and one of the reasons is, I would like to concentrate on your last paragraph.

Even bible.org recognizes that 2Peter is almost certainly not authentic. If this were a purely academic question the matter would have been considered settled long ago. But 2Peter was incorporated into the 27 books of the canon of the NT, which fundamentalist Christians have declared to have been the result of God's Divine Will, and therefore 2Peter is authentic by proclamation. Christianity is stitched together by a good deal of just such proclamations and declarations of indisputable fact. More on this later.

First, I would like to point out, I do not usually see very many post that are as involved, and of the same volume as you, and I, seem to continue to get involved in. Therefore, whenever I get involved in a discussion with you, I have to ignore other posters, and topics, I am interested in. Just like here on this thread, Zzyzx, has posed some questions I would love to answer, but as I said, I have to ignore him, so as to respond to you. If I do not respond to you, I am then accused of avoiding, or not being able to answer the objections, as you have accused me in the past.

I have been jilted by many many Christians in the past, inevitably after a long and detailed post on my part. So please forgive me if I initially took your slowness of response time as just another in a long line of Christians taking a powder when confronted with information they have discovered to their shock that they have no means to answer. Information which only serves to contradict their entire view of reality after all. But I have learned that you require time to present your well considered and well thought out responses. There's nothing that I enjoy more than well considered and well thought out responses. So by all means take as much time as you consider necessary. If days are going to stretch into weeks however, please do me the courtesy of dropping me a PM.

Which brings me to my second point here. When I came to this site, I thought I would be coming to a site in which I would be debating the Christian Faith, with other Christians. In other words, I was looking at that time, for a place where I would be able to call other Christians out on what they claim to believe. Of course once I arrived, I found that there were not very many Christians here on this site. It did not take me very long to understand why there are not that many of us here. I am convinced it is because, there are not very many Christians, who have actually thought through what they believe, therefore when they are confronted with people with opposing beliefs, who have actually thought through what they believe, the Christian, cannot sustain an argument. At any rate, I tend to attempt to stay focused on challenging, folks on what they believe Christianity teaches. I have done this with, Atheist, unbelievers, and I have also called out Christians here as well, remembering, there are few Christians here to call out. These type of discussions do not tend to be so involved, because you usually are only involved with one topic, however when we begin to talk of defending the truth of the Christian Faith, this involves, the whole of the Bible. There is a huge difference in getting involved in defending the Faith, which can get extremely involved, and there is very little chance of settling our differences, (again more on that in a moment), and getting involved in a discussion of what Christianity actually teaches.

When I first came to this site, it seemed to me that the number of believers and non believers were relatively evenly split. Over those past five years however I have watched the believers steadily diminish in number. Some just abruptly left. Most of these have never returned, even those still carried as members. Many other believers seemed to almost have a nervous breakdown, shrieking out their fury at seeing their most cherished beliefs being so massively, and effectively shredded like tissue paper. These individuals inevitably ended up being banned from the forum. What we have assembled here now is a rather one sided congregation of non believers who, upon watching their opponents consistently fade away in the face of non believer facts and logic, have rather reasonably concluded that their side of the argument has prevailed. There are sub-forums here designed specifically for believers to use, non believers not allowed. If you can find enough believers left who haven't already been chased away by those horrible wascally non believers. This is the "Christianity and Apologetics" subforum however. This is where Christians come to truly test out what it is they think they believe. My experience is that many Christians have lived a relatively sheltered life, where everything is exactly as they have been programmed to believe that it is. Atheists are presented as strawmen, easily destroyed. As an ACTUAL testing grounds for Christian beliefs however, this forum represents reality 101. Here you get a taste of an actual counter argument. You can either run and hide, or you can consider this a learning experience. And what you will discover is that if you underestimate the counter argument, you do so at the peril of your beliefs. Because non belief is currently the fastest growing system of thought in the country.

Your problem is that you are attempting to defend a losing position.

All I really want to say here is, WOW!!! This is an extremely bold statement. It almost leaves me speechless, and it should. It should leave me speechless, because I am clearly dealing with someone who is convinced, they cannot be wrong!! There is a huge difference, in being convinced you are right, and being convinced, there is no way you can be wrong.

Let me revise the statement "you are attempting to defend a losing position,"
to, "you are attempting to defend a position that simply cannot be defended through recourse to reason, logic, and the facts." A "losing" position by default. You cannot defend your position based on "the facts," because you will discover that the facts you always assumed fully supported your position, invariably disappear like smoke when subjected to actual scrutiny. You will discover that in reality there is no hard indisputable ground of firm evidence for you to stand on. Because your system of belief has been stitched together with unfounded traditions, baseless assertions and empty assumptions, but nothing that approaches indisputable fact. You are standing on a foundation of smoke, attempting to provide some rational basis in reason and logic for believing that a corpse came back to life and flew away. And you won't be able to do it! Nothing outside of your personal faith that it is all true of course, and your very subjective belief that you have an actual relationship with invisible friends.

My emphasis, is on the word, CAN! In other words there is a huge difference in saying you, "have shown rather conclusively that the empty tomb, the missing corpse, and the rumor of the risen Jesus, "IS," the reason, and saying that it, "Can," be. I will not disagree that it, "CAN," be, the problem is, you cannot demonstrate that it, "WAS," the action of the living. You can only demonstrate that it possibly could have been, but, in the end all you bring to the table is assertions, yourself. My position, is not based solely on assertions, and assumptions, rather they are based on the testimony of those who at least claimed to be eyewitnesses.

Then by all means, SHOW THESE "TESTIMONIES!"

While I will agree you use reason, your position, is based on assertion, and assumptions, you have made, some 2000 years after the fact! You have proved, absolutely nothing. So, you seem to think, I MUST prove my position beyond doubt, while all you have to do is, SHOW POSSIBILITIES. Well, this may be the way you see things, but please allow me to tell you the way I see things.

In the end, this is all you are doing yourself. You are simply giving reasons for your unbelief. I understand your reasons for unbelief, and have no problem with your unbelief. I appreciate the fact that you have at least used your reason to come to your unbelief, and I do not condemn, ridicule, or look down on you, in any way because of your unbelief. I am not angry with, Atheists, and unbelievers, especially, those that have thought through their position. However, I am extremely angry with Christians, who have not used their reason, and then go on to condemn, ridicule, and look down, on those who do not believe. Atheists, and unbelievers, do far less damage to the Faith, than do Christians, who have no idea what it is they claim to believe. I certainly expect, the unbeliever, and Atheist, to attempt to damage the Faith, but I do not expect, nor will I accept fellow Christians doing the same. I have shared this story on another thread, and I think it will demonstrate where I stand.

I stood on the floor of a Christian conference, filled with Christian brothers, and sisters, and opposed sending a letter of protest to Disney World. If you will recall, Disney World, had decided to provide insurance coverage for the patners of their homosexual employees. My question was, "what in the world, do we have to do with Disney World?" I went on to say, "Disney World, does not name the Name of Christ, however, there are many ministries, that in fact do name the Name of Christ, and are preaching a false, and dangerous doctrine, and I would be more than willing to not only send a letter of protest to these ministries, I would also be willing to forbid, any of our members from supporting these ministries.

The reason I bring this story up, is to demonstrate, that I do not, condemn, ridicule, or look down, on those who are not Christians. I do not expect all to believe the Gospel, and I also do not expect those who reject the Gospel, and the Christian Faith, to behave according to my beliefs. On the other hand, you certainly do, condemn, ridicule, and look down, on the Christian Faith. This would not be hard at all to demonstrate, all one would have to do, is refer to your post. So then, if you are this critical of the Faith itself, then I believe we can determine from this, what you actually think of those of us who hold to this Faith. My point of course is, I am in complete disagreement with you, as far as our beliefs are concerned, but I will not allow our disagreements determine what I think of you as a person. The question is, can you do the same? Or is it the case, that if someone disagrees with you, as far as Christianity is concerned, then they are less of a person?

Now, you are extremely good at skating the edge, as far as the rules of this site is concerned, and I will have to admit, that you have not crossed the edge as far as I can see. I want you to know, that I do not take offense in any way to anything you have said. In fact, I appreciate your candidness. Your candidness, helps me out in a couple of ways. First, it allows me to truly understand where you stand. In other words, I never wonder what you are saying, because you say it plainly, not concerning yourself, with the way people may take it. I am much the same way myself, and I really do not understand why people would be offended. Either, what is being said is true, or it is false, why does it matter how it is said? The other way in which it helps me is, it allows me to get some sort of understanding of the person I am dealing with. I tend to believe, a lot of what you do is tactical, in other words, if you attack the beliefs of someone, in reality you are attacking them, if you can attack them personally, this will a lot of times veer the person of topic in an attempt to defend themselves. It also brings emotions into play. When someone allows emotions to get in the way, they usually lose their ability to reason. This is on of the oldest tricks in the book, but it continues to be very effective. However, I am able to read through all of this, and understand the substance of what you are saying. Therefore, continue to say it the way you would like, I take no offense at all.

At any rate, you do seem to be frustrated with Christians. I, not only understand this frustration, I share it with you. My frustration, stems from the fact, that it seems most Christians have turned their reason off, and are motivated simply by how the feel, (emotion). Therefore, although we may be divided over the truth of the Christian Faith, it seems we do share a common frustration.

In the end, there is a major difference between us. You reject Christianity, while I embrace it. I will never be able to prove my position, and I clearly understand this. As I said, all I can do is, give the reason for my belief. I believe, in reality, you are in the same position. In other words, you cannot prove, your position, and you cannot disprove, Christianity. All you can really do is, give the reason for your unbelief. However, I think there may be one other question we need to ask. The question, is not one that I need to ask you, and I do not believe it is a question you should ask me, rather, I think it is a question we can only ask, ourselves. The only one who can truly answer this question is ourselves, when we are alone, with only our thoughts.

The question for me would be. Am I truly looking at the evidence, objectively, or is there some sort of emotional reason I continue to hold on to the belief I have? In other words, do I believe, simply because I have been brought up in the Faith, and want to hang on to the beliefs, of my family, and friends, so that I am not excluded from them? Only I, can truly answer this question. Having said this, allow me to say, I have rejected a good portion of what I was taught as a child, as far as the Faith is concerned. Because of this, I am no longer in the same fellowship with my family, and the overwhelming majority of my friends. Other than my wife, and children, I have absolutely no family in the Church I attend. As far as friends from the Church of my childhood, there is one, and his family, which I consider family. At any rate, I understand that this does not necessarily mean, that I am absolutely objective here, but I think it does demonstrate, that I am not hanging on to what I was taught, simply for emotional reasons.

The question for you would be the same. Are you looking at the evidence objectively, or, is there some sort of emotional reason you have rejected the Faith you were brought up in? Only you, can truly answer this question!

In the end I am merely pointing out that corpses do not come back to life and fly away except in tale tales and make believe, and that a natural explanation is almost certain to be the real answer, as opposed to a supernatural explanation which contradicts all experience and common sense. Yes, that is my rationale for non belief. It's really that easy. All you have to do is provide a compelling reason to suppose that a corpse actually came back to life and flew away in this case. If it's compelling, then why WOULDN'T I believe it? What would serve to compel you personally to accept as fully true and valid the existence of Santa and his team of flying reindeer? THAT sort of reason to believe is what I mean by compelling, as opposed to declaring foolishness and tall tales to be true by declaration.

Now, you are extremely good at skating the edge, as far as the rules of this site is concerned, and I will have to admit, that you have not crossed the edge as far as I can see. I want you to know, that I do not take offense in any way to anything you have said. In fact, I appreciate your candidness. Your candidness, helps me out in a couple of ways. First, it allows me to truly understand where you stand. In other words, I never wonder what you are saying, because you say it plainly, not concerning yourself, with the way people may take it. I am much the same way myself, and I really do not understand why people would be offended.

Allow me to address this point separately. It is never my intention to be needlessly offensive. But the fact that you will be offended is understood in this type of debate. To you, what I am saying is blasphemy and that offends you. Not too many centuries ago I would be set on fire by Christians for saying a fraction of what I have said here. Even as late as the 20th century in this country I could have been arrested for the crime of "disparaging" your religious beliefs. Christians have maintained their system of make believe in largely Christian areas of the world though force of overwhelming numerical superiority and threat of physical violence for centuries. Muslims do the same things in Muslim dominated areas, as do Hindus in Hindu dominated areas of the world. That time is largely past in Europe and the USA now however. Freedom of speech actually MEANS freedom of speech. For the first time in it's history really, Christian claims are being forced to stand up to an actual counter argument. I'm personally only interested in what is true, and I am more than willing to let truth win out, as it surely will. But this means saying things that you and other Christians will find offensive. And that is the nature of this sort of a debate. In the making of an omelettes, some eggs will inevitably need to be broken.

My trip was very enjoyable, thank you.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 17 by Tired of the Nonsense]

That is as powerful and compelling a post as any I have read in seven years on this Forum. Complements also to Realworldjack for presenting well a theistic position.

The exchange should be required reading in churches, seminaries, and Sunday school classes.

Unfortunately, "true believers" seldom encounter opposition views so well presented -- as would be expected for those who stay where it is safe and comfortable, reading in-house literature and reaffirming one another.

Challenging the myths surrounding the "empty tomb" story exposes a potential fundamental flaw in Christian beliefs and literature. As Paul/Saul is said to have written, "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:14

[dukekenha]

[Replying to post 15 by Realworldjack]

The exchange of thoughts are worth reading. Especially if we're looking for the truth.

But ones thoughts maybe biased on how he believe on the belief or unbelief. If we have belief we prove things that is in accordance to the belief. We don't look for things that will disprove it but prove it. And we have unbelief that will put doubts in the belief and find things that will prove the unbelief.

I believe that my belief is in the winning side and the unbelief is neither hot nor cold. That in the end will be rejected by the mouth.

Godspeed Realworldjack for our journey through Christ!