What's at stake?

[Elijah John]

Assuming that Jesus is not God, there seems to be a clear violation of the first commandment, that we are to have "no other gods before me (YHVH)".

What is at stake here, how serious an infraction of God's primary law is worshiping Jesus?

Does the gravity of this situation make those who worship Jesus more biased in favor of keeping Jesus as their God and the object of their worship, rather than opening themselves to evidence of the contrary?

Two or three things occur to me, that I will share after some replies.

I think that most Evangelicals swear that those who DO NOT worship Jesus spend eternity in hell...pretty high stakes.

But what if they are wrong, what if the reverse is true, what if there is punishment FOR worshiping Jesus, if he is NOT God? What then are the stakes, if worshiping Jesus is indeed a form of idolatry?

[YahDough]

.

Paul "knew" Jesus all right, regardless of whether he met Him before his Damascus encounter. Paul met the glorified risen Lord and Savior. Oh ya.

HOW, exactly, do you KNOW that Paul/Saul "knew Jesus?"

As I said in the previous post, the Holy Ghost teacher of truth gives confirmation to believers.
The Holy Ghost is a "believer benefit" that comes with repentance and baptism into Christ.

Did you read it in religion-promotion literature (that cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate) or hear it from others quoting the literature?

No

Not everything that is written or said is truthful. When a claim can not be verified HOW can one determine if it is true?

The same answer as the first question.
Jesus said to His disciples:
Jn:8:32: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Jesus said He was the truth.Jn:14:6:
Paul knew the truth. Paul knew Jesus.

Many times difficult questions and understanding hard truths take a long process of reasoning with the LORD.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

[Zzyzx]

.

Paul "knew" Jesus all right, regardless of whether he met Him before his Damascus encounter. Paul met the glorified risen Lord and Savior. Oh ya.

HOW, exactly, do you KNOW that Paul/Saul "knew Jesus?"

As I said in the previous post,

Repeating a claim does not demonstrate that the claim is true.

the Holy Ghost teacher of truth gives confirmation to believers.

How, exactly, does the "holy ghost" confirm to believers that Paul/Saul knew Jesus"?

The Holy Ghost is a "believer benefit" that comes with repentance and baptism into Christ.

The "holy ghost" has not been shown to be anything more than imagination.

Did you read it in religion-promotion literature (that cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate) or hear it from others quoting the literature?

No

Did the "proof" come from your own mind?

Not everything that is written or said is truthful. When a claim can not be verified HOW can one determine if it is true?

The same answer as the first question.

Evidently it is just a matter of believing whatever one chooses without evidence (and without any way to verify).

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

I am in favor of knowing truth. However, knowing truth requires that I be able to verify that something is true and accurate. Feelings, emotions, opinions, testimonials, hearsay, rumors, ancient tales may convince many people. That is their option.

Jesus said He was the truth.Jn:14:6:
Paul knew the truth. Paul knew Jesus.

How do you KNOW that Paul/Saul "knew the truth" or that he "knew Jesus?"

Both could be 2000 year old religious propaganda. That you believe them makes no difference in debate.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 51 by YahDough]

Hearsay, YD, hearsay. It MAY or (may not) have been Revelation to Paul, but once he (or Luke) tells it to another, it becomes hearsay, and no one is required to believe it.

Seems a shaky foundation for an entire religion, wouldn't you say? The supposed "Vision" of one man? But there ya go, Paul's Theological INTERPRETATION of the crucifixion is the foundation of conventional Christianity to this very day.

[YahDough]

.

Paul "knew" Jesus all right, regardless of whether he met Him before his Damascus encounter. Paul met the glorified risen Lord and Savior. Oh ya.

HOW, exactly, do you KNOW that Paul/Saul "knew Jesus?"

As I said in the previous post,

Repeating a claim does not demonstrate that the claim is true.

I'm just trying to answer your question the best way I can.

the Holy Ghost teacher of truth gives confirmation to believers.

How, exactly, does the "holy ghost" confirm to believers that Paul/Saul knew Jesus"?

Through the confidence "we" have in our understanding and discerning; When we know what we believe.

The Holy Ghost is a "believer benefit" that comes with repentance and baptism into Christ.

The "holy ghost" has not been shown to be anything more than imagination.

Shown to who? Unbelievers! They do not have that gift.

Did you read it in religion-promotion literature (that cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate) or hear it from others quoting the literature?

No

Did the "proof" come from your own mind?

No...It came to my own mind.

Not everything that is written or said is truthful. When a claim can not be verified HOW can one determine if it is true?

The same answer as the first question.

Evidently it is just a matter of believing whatever one chooses without evidence (and without any way to verify).

A person cannot invent truth. They either believe it as truth or they do not. That is the bottom line.

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

I am in favor of knowing truth. However, knowing truth requires that I be able to verify that something is true and accurate. Feelings, emotions, opinions, testimonials, hearsay, rumors, ancient tales may convince many people. That is their option.

Agreed. To "know the truth" is to have full confidence devoid of doubt.

Jesus said He was the truth.Jn:14:6:
Paul knew the truth. Paul knew Jesus.

How do you KNOW that Paul/Saul "knew the truth" or that he "knew Jesus?"

The Holy Ghost Teacher of Truth: Comforter, Spirit of Truth.
That's the 3rd time I have told you. How is it you still don't understand?

[Zzyzx]

.

Repeating a claim does not demonstrate that the claim is true.

I'm just trying to answer your question the best way I can.

I recognize limitations and difficulties religionists encounter in attempting to show that their claims and stories are truthful and accurate. The usual tactics / proclamations / pronouncements / claims that work in church do not work in debate. Many become frustrated when others do not accept their conjectures and opinions " and often leave of their own violation or otherwise.

]The "holy ghost" has not been shown to be anything more than imagination.

Shown to who? Unbelievers! They do not have that gift.

Are you addressing only believers with your posts? If so they should be made in Holy Huddle (or in church, or some other exclusively Christian environment). Here in debate one cannot assume that others accept their religious opinions and preferences.

I, for one, do not accept that the "holy ghost" is anything more than your (generic term) imagination. I trust that those who read these threads do not unanimously accept Christian proclamations about the supposed "holy ghost."

If your intent is to convince believers you may have some success in HH or in church. If you realize that not all debaters believe the tales you believe, it might become apparent that it will take more than repeating platitudes and religious clams / stories to make a favorable impression.

How is it a "gift" to believe incredible tales as though they were true?

A person cannot invent truth.

Can a person invent false stories?

Is it possible to determine which stories are true and which are false WITHOUT examining evidence " checking " investigating?

They either believe it as truth or they do not. That is the bottom line.

Many choose to believe tales about one (or more) of the thousands of proposed "gods" " others choose to ask for substantiation of claims and stories. Those who ask for substantiation beyond religion promotion literature and dogma often become non-believers when they discover that the claims and stories cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination, folklore, legend, myth, and religion promotional literature.

]

Paul knew the truth. Paul knew Jesus.

How do you KNOW that Paul/Saul "knew the truth" or that he "knew Jesus?"

The Holy Ghost Teacher of Truth: Comforter, Spirit of Truth.
That's the 3rd time I have told you. How is it you still don't understand?

Repeating yourself does not clarify or verify your claims and assertions.

In debate you are NOT speaking to the choir (fellow believers). If you wish to make a point that is credible it cannot depend upon readers accepting your belief system.

Many consider the "holy ghost" to be a figment of your (generic term) IMAGINATION. Can you show it to be something else?

What is the EVIDENCE that Paul/Saul "knew Jesus?" Yes there are CLAIMS that he had a "vision" (or hallucination, or delusion, or whatever it was) but claims / tales / stories are NOT evidence of truth and accuracy.

Paul/Saul and the writer of Acts (whoever that may have been) could well have made up the whole thing. How can anyone know / show differently?

If you (generic term) TELL a non-believer that you KNOW what Paul/Saul knew, you are OBLIGATED (under Forum Rules) to substantiate your claim " and you CANNOT use bible stories to do so (since the bible is not considered authoritative in the C&A sub forum).

[Divine Insight]

The Holy Ghost Teacher of Truth: Comforter, Spirit of Truth.
That's the 3rd time I have told you. How is it you still don't understand?

Santa Claus lives at the North Pole. He has flying reindeer and one of them has an illuminated nose that glows so bright it guilds his sleigh at night.

How many time have you been told this? How is it that you still don't understand?

He knows when you are sleeping
he knows when you're awake
he knows if you've been bad or good
so be good for goodness sake!

You better watch out
you better not cry
you better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming
to town!

Understand now?

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 53 by Elijah John]

You have an interesting but distorted perception of Paul (as well as Christ Jesus Himself.)

Do you suppose you might have made Paul blush by giving him credit for starting Christianity?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 53 by Elijah John]

You have an interesting but distorted perception of Paul (as well as Christ Jesus Himself.)

Do you suppose you might have made Paul blush by giving him credit for starting Christianity?

This post makes no argument. It is merely a very general opinion. Do you have an actual argument, with facts to back up your remark?

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 53 by Elijah John]

You have an interesting but distorted perception of Paul (as well as Christ Jesus Himself.)

Do you suppose you might have made Paul blush by giving him credit for starting Christianity?

This post makes no argument. It is merely a very general opinion. Do you have an actual argument, with facts to back up your remark?

I hate to even respond to this accusation. My argument, which I think I conveyed with humor, was that it is ridiculous to attribute Christianity to Paul.

Paul, just like John, James, Jude, Peter, Luke and others all wrote letters to promote Christ and Christianity. It just seems Paul worked harder and gets ridiculed more by unbelievers.

You call my response a "general opinion". So what? I was responding to an opinion.

I am putting you on ignore. I think you deliberately harass me sometimes. Sorry.
I suppose as a moderator now you will be gunning for me.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 53 by Elijah John]

You have an interesting but distorted perception of Paul (as well as Christ Jesus Himself.)

Do you suppose you might have made Paul blush by giving him credit for starting Christianity?

This post makes no argument. It is merely a very general opinion. Do you have an actual argument, with facts to back up your remark?

I hate to even respond to this accusation. My argument, which I think I conveyed with humor, was that it is ridiculous to attribute Christianity to Paul.

Paul, just like John, James, Jude, Peter, Luke and others all wrote letters to promote Christ and Christianity. It just seems Paul worked harder and gets ridiculed more by unbelievers.

You call my response a "general opinion". So what? I was responding to an opinion.

I am putting you on ignore. I think you deliberately harass me sometimes. Sorry.
I suppose as a moderator now you will be gunning for me.

I simply asked you to support your claim. Will you?