Question For The Christians

[bdp]

this thread is like the battle royale of Ex C....is this pay per view?

 

Given the ongoing obtuseness of 'ray' and lnc I don't think, if I were paying, I'd be getting my money's worth.

[oddbird1963]

 

There is no other reasonable way to explain this change than that they saw what they claimed, the risen Jesus.

 

 

Given the fact that religionists tend to "speak ministerially" and exaggerate, there is a more than reasonable explanation.

 

Some of the disciples did , in fact, continue speaking for their dead leader after the fact. The stories got blown out of proportion, added to, embellished and then repeated. After many cycles of repeating and embellishing the story, voila! You have stories about changed lives and risen saviors where there really was none before. These are called legends.

 

Totally reasonable, especially since there is no need to explain or account for stories in anonymous books claiming miraculous events that were written down years after the supposed events took place.

 

Now, I suppose you have some evidence to back up these assertions? Please provide it if you have it.

 

LNC

 

I went back and reinstated the assertion you "conveniently" left out. You stated that there was no other reasonable explanation.

 

I provided a reasonable explanation given the sad collection of "facts" you keep appealing to.

 

It is a superior explanation because I do not have to appeal to the impossible assertion that a dead man came back to life. And it is more in line with the way legends and myths get started.

 

So, I don't see any burden of proof on me here. You maintained that there was no other reasonable explanation. I provided one that is far more reasonable than the snake oil you are trying to sell.

[LNC]

Yet, Matthew tried to tie the death of Jesus into a mass resurrection of the dead.

The stories were written after the "fact", which means embellishments and retrofitting to match scriptural interpretation could easily have occurred.

 

 

Where did Matthew try to do this? Do you claim that all historical accounts are embellishments since they were all written after the fact? Why does this necessarily follow logically? Why wouldn't others who were also eyewitnesses to the events write accounts correcting the misinformation, if that were the case with the gospels?

 

 

Where do the Gospels say he was beaten beyond recognition?

 

We can assume that, based upon the type of flogging that the Romans practiced, it is likely that Jesus was severely beaten on the body and about the head (Matthew 27; Mark 14; Luke 22; John 19), that Jesus face was severely disfigured. The Romans typically used leather whips with lead balls and/or mutton bones tied to the ends to perform floggings.

 

Paul never met Jesus, was instructed by visions, claimed that he learned his gospel from no man, and the specifics he gives in 1 Cor 15:1-3 are not validated by the Gospels or Acts.

The legend of Jessica Lynch can be traced back to within hours of her capture in Iraq.

The legend of Pat Tillman can be traced back to within days after his death.

The legend of Bill Moyers being a radical Marxist arose within hours after Glenn Beck declared it to be so.

Legends and rumors can arise and spread quickly.

 

 

Paul did meet Jesus (Acts 9), just not before the crucifixion. You are actually wrong in your assessment of 1 Cor. 15 and Paul's understanding of the gospel. Paul says that he received the gospel by revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12). He went to Arabia, to the desert to receive that revelation and to be prepared for ministry, and then after three years went to Jerusalem and spent 15 days with Peter and James, we would assume that they compared their understanding of the gospel. He says that they glorified God because of him (which seems to indicate that they were in agreement) Then, fourteen years later, Paul returned to Jerusalem to meet once more with the apostles and they gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul, only asking him to remember the poor, which Paul was already doing (Gal. 2:1-7). So, apparently, Paul received the same message that they did.

 

The legends of Jessica Lynch, Pat Tilman, Bill Moyers and others were quickly corrected, as would the story of Jesus, if they were telling it wrong. You only confirm my point.

 

It’s a “fact” found only in cult writings that were written to validate cult teachings.

It’s a multiple attested cult story that hasn’t been proven to be factual.

 

Your assertion that they were merely "cult wittings" is mere ad hominem, it is not an argument.

 

Her(Anne Frank) sins condemned her to hell, like ours do for us. Her only hope was to trust in Jesus. I don't know whether she did that, so I don't know what her eternal destiny is.

Glad to see you finally admitting that unbelief in Jesus results in damnation.

 

Reread what I said above (I left in in the post so you could read it for yourself). I said it would be Anne Frank's sins that would condemn her and trust in Jesus that would save her. Can you see the distinction? I never said that unbelief in Jesus results in damnation, nor did I imply it. Nor do I believe that most prisoners sit in prison because of unbelief in good lawyers.

 

LNC

[oddbird1963]

Read back on my posts and you will find my explanation of John 3:18 if you haven't found it already.

 

 

 

No, LNC. You don't explain John 3:18. You merely restate your prior theological position. You do not explain how the words of Jesus which directly contradicts your assertions are NOT contradictions.

 

You have no explanation to offer. You just repeat yourself and hope it passes for explanation.

 

Sorry OB, now you are misrepresenting the facts, as well as the Scriptures. I can't help you any further on this issue if you are going to do that.

 

LNC

 

Yet you are unable to explain how I do so. I don't want "help." I want an explanation. And you keep restating your little theological vapor clouds and scurrying away or making these groundless assertions. You are bereft of any real substance on this point. You can't deal with a bald, obvious contradiction in scripture and in your theology. So you're just puffing your chest to make a show of it and then running off to catch your breath, hoping that people don't recognize your evasion tactics. But we do.

[bornagainathiest]

"Told you so!"

 

BAA.

[bdp]

 

 

 

Paul did meet Jesus

 

And yet the most the Lord God Habermas is willing to say is that Paul believed he had met 'Jesus' and he doesn't get 100% agreement even on that much. You're running a lot farther with Habermas than he ever intended anyone to.

 

I'd like "LNC" to answer directly if Matthew was mistaken that tombs were unsealed and dead people revived, came forth, and were seen walking around at the time of 'Jesus' death.

[DesertBob]

God killed innocent people in the Bible, you seem to be okay with that. Can you explain that to me?

 

First, show me where God killed innocent people in the Bible.

Hm. Sounds like we need to define "innocent".

 

For LNC, innocence, I'm guessing means, sinless, as in never in any way, shape or form falling short of god's standards of conduct and thought.

 

For Ouroboros, it means, objectively guilty of something that actually deserves eternal torment.

 

LNC would say everyone deserves it, whereas I suspect Ouroboros doubts anyone does, but certainly nothing close to "everyone".

 

LNC would no doubt say that we can't apply human standards of jurisprudence and ethics to God Almighty, who is in a class by Himself. So even if his God does something humans don't understand, such as setting man up to fail or punishing all out of proportion to any conceivable offense, we can't question it or reason about it apart from Holy Writ.

 

Looks like an impasse to me. Or have I misrepresented either of you?

 

If we can't agree on a basis to assess things, what is the point of the discussion?

 

God gets 100% of the power and 0% of the responsibility. Man gets 100% of the responsibility and none of the power. When things go right, God gets the glory; when things go wrong, man gets the blame.

 

What a sweet deal.

[Ouroboros]

The fact is that he is using statistics of the number of supporters of what he is trying to judge to be a fact is in fact a way of using ad populum argument.

 

Over 90% of biological anthropologists agree to 100% about more than 90% of the different aspect of Evolution, therefore at least 90% of Evolution is to 100% absolute true.

 

You must agree, it is stupid to use the number of people who agree to a certain idea to be the foundation to how reliable the idea is to be a fact.

 

It is plain stupid, irrational, and illogical, and you know it.

 

So, should we just forget what the experts conclude about issues and just go with our gut? I'm not sure what you are suggesting as an alternative. Help me out.

 

LNC

I'm surprised that you don't get my point.

[Ouroboros]

God killed innocent people in the Bible, you seem to be okay with that. Can you explain that to me?

 

First, show me where God killed innocent people in the Bible.

The flood.

 

Do you actually consider babies, new born, and fetuses to be guilty?

 

Everyone has sinned. Therefore, the "sin" factor can be reduce in the expression. It's superfluous as a parameter for deciding salvation. No one is without sin.

 

God's wrath rests upon all of us, therefore, the "wrath" factor can be reduced in the expression. Same thing here, it's superfluous in deciding who is saved or not. Everyone is on the same page here.

 

The only factor (variable) which the whole formula is dependent upon is belief (faith).

 

You have faith -> go to Heaven.

You do not have faith -> you do not go to Heaven.

 

Unless you decide to say that some people do not sin and do not have God's wrath over them, and that would be very unbiblical.

 

Simple logic. You know, "logic", that's the thing you're supposed to know by now after all your studies but still seem to not fully grasp.

 

Do you know Boolean algebra. Set up the expression for redemption and then simplify (reduce) the formula to its optimal state.

 

 

If no one is without sin, then your first statement is false (i.e., that God killed innocent people). However, if you are suggesting that if everyone is guilty, then no one is guilty, then your logic is flawed.

No. Read again.

 

Everyone has lied in the course of his/her life.

God lied too. Did he really want Abraham to sacrifice Isak, or did he test Abraham by giving a fake command? Lying is to tell an untruth, is it not? Or do you consider God's untruth to be truth?

 

Does that mean that lying is no longer an issue about which we should be concerned? Faith is only effective if the object of the faith is worthy of it. IOW, I can have faith in the POTUS to get us out of this recession; however, if he is not capable or competent to deliver that result, then my faith is in vain and ineffective. So, faith is not the deciding factor, it is the object of the faith that is.

 

LNC

Good. Then we are all going to Heaven. It's not what we believe but if we have sin. I don't have any sin. I don't lie. I don't cheat. I don't steal.

[bdp]

 

 

First, show me where God killed innocent people in the Bible.

 

No, show ME 'god' and then a discussion of where/what/why/how 'god' can ensue. But you can't show me 'god' so no discussion is necessary, or even possible.

[Ouroboros]

Looks like an impasse to me. Or have I misrepresented either of you?

 

If we can't agree on a basis to assess things, what is the point of the discussion?

Agree.

 

And I just want LNC and Ray to get that point too. They have a twisted view of reality, and they're trying to give us reasons to why their view is better than ours and that we should convert to their beliefs.

 

They just don't get that the problem is with them. How they behave, discuss, and the reasons they give, are the very reasons why they have a hard time reaching a person like me. They have to change, but they can't, because they don't want to. Their belief is their identity. And since their identity and belief are the one, they think they got it all figured out, that they're 100% right about everything, even when both of the disagree.

 

Since LNC takes the view that no one in the Bible dies without guilt, he must consider being human is synonymous of guilty. We are all guilty of being born, or more correctly in the Christian view, at the inception. It's not about lying, stealing, murdering, it's about being conceived. It's about being a zygote once. So we all deserve Hell.

 

But to get to Heaven, now, we have to believe to get out from this inherited guilt. Unbelief has nothing to do with us going to Hell, but belief has everything to do with us going to Heaven. Such contradiction. Not steering the wheel has nothing to do with my crashing the car, but steering to the left has everything to do with my avoiding the crash? It's inconsistent.

[bdp]

 

should we just forget what the experts conclude about issues

 

Habermas' 'experts' don't agree 100% on anything he puts forth, even though these are mundane occurrences with purely naturalistic explanations. You're making huge leaps from the mundane to the patently absurd, pretending that such things are even in the discussion of the 'experts' when they aren't. But I don't need 'experts' anyway as I have a mind of my own and no bias or agenda to prop up.

[bornagainathiest]

rayskidude >>

Remember - that people in hell remain eternally unrepentant,

 

How do you know? Have you asked them?

 

I gave ample evidence from the Book of Revelation, and if anyone in this life repents and believes - they receive forgiveness. Why should this truth stop with this life on Planet Earth?

 

they will forever refuse to acknowledge God as God,

 

How is that even possible? They are dead, know the afterlife exists, are punished by being sent to Hell by God, and yet are able to claim that God doesn't exist?

 

You clearly didn't read my statement (which, in your case, doesn't surprise me). They will NOT ACKNOWLEDGE GOD AS GOD - this says nothing about not believing that God exists. It simply means they refuse His Godship over them, as does Satan. Satan knows God exists - he simply refuses to live under God's lordship.

 

And all your talk of 'sleep' is blather. Do you not understand 'metaphor?

 

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

 

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Rom 1:28–32). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Do you see the psychosis here? These unbelievers know God exists and they know His law and the just punishment- but they don't care! They don't acknowledge God in their lives. Ergo, they will receive what they have always desired - God's absence from their lives. The place of God's absence is Hell.

 

9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

 

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (2 Thess 1:8–10). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Calling Mr. Sleep-is-Blather!

 

I was thinking about getting you a shovel for Xmas, but you seem to be so good at digging yourself into holes that I'll just pass on that option. Read on, "True Believer" and learn from a godless Atheist about sleep...

 

...or just persist in your perversity, denial and stubborns. It's your funeral! (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

met·a·phor noun \ˈme-tə-ˌfȯr also -fər\

Definition of METAPHOR

 

1

: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare simile

2

: an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : symbol 2

— met·a·phor·ic or met·a·phor·i·cal adjective

— met·a·phor·i·cal·ly adverb

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Matthew 27:52, John 11:11-16, Acts 7:59-60, Acts 13:36, 1 Corinthians 15:6 and 2 Peter 3:1-4 all use the metaphor of sleep as a likeness or analogy of death. Various people are described as being asleep or falling asleep, yet they are truly dead and not just unconscious.

 

However, these two passages explain about the 'sleep of death' most fully.

 

1 Corinthians 15 : 50 - 58 (ESV)

Mystery and Victory

50I tell you this, brothers:(BK) flesh and blood(BL) cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Behold! I tell you a mystery.(BM) We shall not all sleep,(BN) but we shall all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For(BO) the trumpet will sound, and(BP) the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and(BQ) this mortal body must put on immortality. 54When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

(BR) "Death is swallowed up in victory." 55(BS) "O death, where is your victory?

O death, where is your sting?"

56The sting of death is sin, and(BT) the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God,(BU) who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58(BV) Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in(BW) the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord(BX) your labor is not in vain.

 

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (ESV)

The Coming of the Lord

13But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep,(AD) that you may not grieve as others do(AE) who have no hope. 14For(AF) since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him(AG) those who have fallen asleep. 15For this we declare to you(AH) by a word from the Lord,[d] that(AI) we who are alive, who are left until(AJ) the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For(AK) the Lord himself will descend(AL) from heaven(AM) with a cry of command, with the voice of(AN) an archangel, and(AO) with the sound of the trumpet of God. And(AP) the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be(AQ) caught up together with them(AR) in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so(AS) we will always be with the Lord. 18Therefore encourage one another with these words.

 

Here is the order in which the Bible describes these future events.

 

1. Since the time of Adam's first disobedience people have been falling asleep - that is dying a true, physical death.

2. Apart from a few (Enoch, Elijah, etc.) who have been taken up alive into heaven, every human who ever lived and fell asleep (died) is still asleep - unjudged and awaiting the Day of the Lord.

3. The only exception to this is Jesus, the very first to be raised from the (metaphorical) sleep of death.

4. He is in heaven now, seated at the right hand of the Father.

5. Only when the day of the Lord comes, will it be time for all the (metaphorically) sleeping dead to rise.

6. The signal for this event will be the Last Trumpet. Even when this happens, nobody is judged. That doesn't happen until the Book of Life is opened by the only one fit to break it's seals - Jesus Christ.

7. The trumpet sounds and in an instant, everyone will be changed into the new, imperishable flesh.

8. Those who are still alive (i.e., those who haven't yet fallen 'asleep') will also be changed.

9. Everyone who ever lived will be changed and made immortal.

10. Then everyone will face judgement. All will be found wanting, but Christ will intercede for the faithful and they will be spared the Father's wrath.

11. Those not knowing Christ will feel the force of the Father's wrath and be cast into the Lake of Fire, their final destination.

12. Because these sinners have been changed and cannot die, they will suffer in this place for all eternity.

 

So, this talk about 'sleep' is not blather, it's fully founded on scripture (see above). Yes, the word sleep is a metaphor, but it's a Biblical description of something that is real enough - death.

 

You're wrong to dismiss what scripture says about the dead sleeping, Ray.

 

BAA.

[Legion]

Women's hips are like parentheses around the important parts.

 

Carry on.

 

(.)(.)

/ \

( v )

l l

l l

 

...this artistry is copyright protected.

 

the out of place abdomen and legs are what makes it a master"piece"

 

Where's her head End?

[agnosticator]

Ergo, they will receive what they have always desired - God's absence from their lives. The place of God's absence is Hell.

 

You're admitting that this life is hell? God's absence isn't so bad after all!

[agnosticator]

But remember, the Biblical theology presents Satan as our adversary who inspires false prophets and who can & does perform 'miracles' to get people to look away from God.

 

A good example of how christians deflect our attention away from doctrinal doubts to fearful, paranoid thinking. Just like the government wants us to fear all muslims because they are lurking just around the corner with a bomb for each and every one of us.

[agnosticator]

You know, every time someone commits or allows someone to commit an atrocity on a fellow human being, it's always preceded by dehumanizing the victim. The Nazis dehumanized anyone not of the Aryan "race" and in particular dehumanized Jews as human garbage. That's all you're doing here...

 

Precisely! That's how christians can dismiss us as asking for it. We weren't "True Christians", so we should be separated and saved only for everlasting punishment.

 

 

What you know in your heart is that eternal torment is a disproportionate punishment for any conceivable offense and therefore immoral.

 

His heart is too hardened to recognize it.

[agnosticator]

That God's holiness, justice, righteousness is expressed in ways that seem illogical to you, this simply means that you have chosen to be judge over God.

 

We have no choice but to believe that justice is the concept of moral rightness based upon fairness and rationality which is expressed by principles and laws. Justice is one of many things that make it possible for humans to be able to coexist and cooperate. Expressing holiness and righteousness is the biblegod's way of separating humans into us vs. them, with the only point to be made in the end, being cruel and unusual eternal punishment. SUFFERING is the most desired value of the biblegod. Not justice!

 

It has nothing to do with judging the biblegod, but everything to do with a natural repulsive feeling of shock and fear. Hell is simply cruelty. The biblegod makes the Nazis look like little Brownies selling their cookies door-to-door!

 

 

So, in your finite nature and imperfect character (which is true of all humans) - you elevate your sentiments as supreme, and accuse others of 'de-humanizing' people whom God created for eternal life and for His Glory.

 

You forgot that the biblegod created MOST living things to spend eternity in HELL.

[agnosticator]

Sin occurs because we reject, ignore, etc God's will for us, and we set out to accomplish "My Will." Because of our sin nature and finiteness - My Will ends in My Destruction, My Ruin. Yet God can and will deliver Me from my path and pursuit toward self-destruction. What's called for is that I abandon "My Will" and return to seeking God's Will.

 

Nobody needs to be 'delivered' from their own path, especially to follow feel-good subjective interpretations of what 'god' wants for them. I so royally fucked up my own life trying to follow 'what god wants' that I still get poisonous resentment about it if I let myself think about it too long. That's what brought me to ruin now - if I had followed my own path I would have been far better off today. If your great big pantsload of crap works for you, like blanket in hand and thumb in mouth, beautiful. It doesn't work for everyone, and you're a horse's ass for continually trying to ram down our throats something that is impossible to believe and that proved terribly harmful to some of us.

 

My experience was similar bdp. I gave up my path to follow "what god wants", only to realize much later that it was a big lie. But Ray could only stomach the lie with his false dichotomy of God's Will/My Will. It's so easy and neat to judge people this way!

[agnosticator]

"Told you so!"

 

BAA.

 

Was that being applied to LNC too?

[Guest Valk0010]

The fact is that he is using statistics of the number of supporters of what he is trying to judge to be a fact is in fact a way of using ad populum argument.

 

Over 90% of biological anthropologists agree to 100% about more than 90% of the different aspect of Evolution, therefore at least 90% of Evolution is to 100% absolute true.

 

You must agree, it is stupid to use the number of people who agree to a certain idea to be the foundation to how reliable the idea is to be a fact.

 

It is plain stupid, irrational, and illogical, and you know it.

 

So, should we just forget what the experts conclude about issues and just go with our gut? I'm not sure what you are suggesting as an alternative. Help me out.

 

LNC

Examine the arguements instead of resting with a majority maybe. There is no point saying 90 percent agree to something and then because of that majority calling it a fact(which is fallacious anyway, but either way). Just say why your view is true and leave it at that. Though I know there wrong, creationists which are in the minority in science, could be right? But just because its a minority opinion doesn't automatically disqualify anything.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

And in their studies they find nothing that causes them to jettison the faith, but actually see how God uses believers to accomplish tons of good in this world. Why turn from your studied conclusions and the evidence from life?

You ignored the point entirely. Think about it within the context of the WL Craig quote. They don't see it as anything but true, because they condition themselves to believe it already and usually already do believe it before they start studying it generally. Apologetics to me is starting with a conclusion and working backwards.

 

 

What I see here is a man who is accurately describing the basis for his faith - the most convincing evidence will always be your first-hand experience. But in addition to his own experience - and that of many people close to him - he also has a set of rational arguments that point to the fact that the MOST PLAUSIBLE explanation for all that we see and experience is the Biblical God.

He is like the mormon kid that say its true because it is and travels door to door because of that confidence. Or the fundy that says the bible is true because it says so. That is what that quote reminds me of. To me that sounds like he is saying, he would believe it even without the supposed rational arguments.

 

 

But remember, the Biblical theology presents Satan as our adversary who inspires false prophets and who can & does perform 'miracles' to get people to look away from God.

 

Is there nontheological proof of the existence of satan. Theological figures don't cut it. I say this over and over again because its so true.

 

Religion is a explanation of the unexplainable. The devil is the fall guy of the bronze age. Enough stuff goes wrong, mixed with already developing cognitive abilities= the devil. Also that role changes depending on the culture. Its why the judeo christian idea of the devil is say different then other devil beliefs. Religion is what happened when in our evolution we developed enough of a brain to want a understanding of the world that instinct doesn't allow. Lightening scary is must be Zeus weapon. Why does so much just go wrong, its got to be a bad demon. You get the idea I hope.

 

Can you prove the existence of the devil with only fact?

[bdp]

 

he also has a set of rational arguments that point to the fact that the MOST PLAUSIBLE explanation for all that we see and experience is the Biblical God.

 

It isn't a fact and it isn't the most plausible explanation of anything.

[centauri]

Yet, Matthew tried to tie the death of Jesus into a mass resurrection of the dead.

The stories were written after the "fact", which means embellishments and retrofitting to match scriptural interpretation could easily have occurred.

 

 

Where did Matthew try to do this?

Matthew 27.

 

Do you claim that all historical accounts are embellishments since they were all written after the fact?

No, I stated that embellishments can easily happen after the fact.

 

Why does this necessarily follow logically? Why wouldn't others who were also eyewitnesses to the events write accounts correcting the misinformation, if that were the case with the gospels?

You’re assuming the author of Matthew was an eyewitness when the author isn’t even known.

Which Gospel writer presents the accurate birth narrative of Jesus and his genealogy and which author corrects the misinformation?

 

centauri:

Where do the Gospels say he was beaten beyond recognition?

 

We can assume that, based upon the type of flogging that the Romans practiced, it is likely that Jesus was severely beaten on the body and about the head (Matthew 27; Mark 14; Luke 22; John 19), that Jesus face was severely disfigured. The Romans typically used leather whips with lead balls and/or mutton bones tied to the ends to perform floggings.

You've embellished the story by imposing your preferred assumptions into it.

The text itself says nothing about Jesus being beaten beyond recognition.

[centauri]

Paul never met Jesus, was instructed by visions, claimed that he learned his gospel from no man, and the specifics he gives in 1 Cor 15:1-3 [corrected to read 1 Cor 15:1-8] are not validated by the Gospels or Acts.

The legend of Jessica Lynch can be traced back to within hours of her capture in Iraq.

The legend of Pat Tillman can be traced back to within days after his death.

The legend of Bill Moyers being a radical Marxist arose within hours after Glenn Beck declared it to be so.

Legends and rumors can arise and spread quickly.

 

 

Paul did meet Jesus (Acts 9), just not before the crucifixion.

Paul met what he assumed was Jesus, which was a light beam which was not the same resurrected Jesus that the Apostles saw.

 

You are actually wrong in your assessment of 1 Cor. 15 and Paul's understanding of the gospel. Paul says that he received the gospel by revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12). He went to Arabia, to the desert to receive that revelation and to be prepared for ministry, and then after three years went to Jerusalem and spent 15 days with Peter and James, we would assume that they compared their understanding of the gospel. He says that they glorified God because of him (which seems to indicate that they were in agreement) Then, fourteen years later, Paul returned to Jerusalem to meet once more with the apostles and they gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul, only asking him to remember the poor, which Paul was already doing (Gal. 2:1-7). So, apparently, Paul received the same message that they did.

Acts doesn’t line up well with Paul’s version in Galatians on several levels.

In Acts, Paul caves into the demands of the Jerusalem council while in Galatians he sticks with his “no more law” story.

It seems you would like me to believe that there are three years of an Arabian hiatus somewhere in between verse Acts 9:25 and 26.

Paul also saw more disciples than just Peter and James.

 

Perhaps Luke should have put a note into Acts saying "see Galatians for more information".

Acts 9:22-28

But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:

But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.

Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.

And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.

 

Acts 22:16-17 reads about the same as Acts 9, there is no reason to assume a time gap other than to reconcile the problem.

Acts 26 also gives no indication of an extended time gap in Paul’s itinerary.

That’s three accounts and none of them give any indication of an extended time gap.

Luke is alleged to be an inspired writer under the guidance of a deity that wants all men to be saved and is not the author of confusion.

All Luke had to do was add two words, such as…”And years later, when Saul was come to Jerusalem etc.”

It would have been very easy to reconcile the problem at the time and Luke had three opportunities to do so and never once did.

 

The legends of Jessica Lynch, Pat Tilman, Bill Moyers and others were quickly corrected, as would the story of Jesus, if they were telling it wrong. You only confirm my point.

No, this isn’t confirmation of your point.

The news media of that time wasn’t anywhere near as rapid nor was it equipped with the technology of today.

Furthermore, the New Testament itself states that there were false gospels and false teachers spreading “wrong” stories about Jesus.

Embellishment and myth making were going on for decades after “Jesus” died.

There are numerous gospels that never made it into the modern New Testament Bible, whose canon was determined by the Catholic Church long after Jesus had died.

The Pat Tillman story has been going on for years and still the “facts” are not fully known.

Glenn Beck is still calling Bill Moyers a radical Marxist, so that story has never been corrected.

Glenn Beck is paid by one of the biggest media outlets in the world and claims to have millions of listeners.

 

 

centauri:

It’s a “fact” found only in cult writings that were written to validate cult teachings.

It’s a multiple attested cult story that hasn’t been proven to be factual.

 

Your assertion that they were merely "cult wittings" is mere ad hominem, it is not an argument.

It’s a valid argument because the writers were members of a cult or group that had a vested interest in promoting the tale and wanting it to create more followers.

The tale is only attested to by members of the cult, which renders it biased and exclusive.

It’s a form of advertising brochure where the testimonies are only given by satisfied customers, who own stock in the company selling the product.

 

LNC:

Her(Anne Frank) sins condemned her to hell, like ours do for us. Her only hope was to trust in Jesus. I don't know whether she did that, so I don't know what her eternal destiny is.

 

centauri:

Glad to see you finally admitting that unbelief in Jesus results in damnation.

 

 

Reread what I said above (I left in in the post so you could read it for yourself). I said it would be Anne Frank's sins that would condemn her and trust in Jesus that would save her. Can you see the distinction? I never said that unbelief in Jesus results in damnation, nor did I imply it. Nor do I believe that most prisoners sit in prison because of unbelief in good lawyers.

Anne Frank's sins included unbelief in Jesus as her savior, unless you want to claim that she never heard of Jesus or converted to Christianity.

Willful unbelief in Jesus is a sin, and a primary sin at that.

Therefore her unbelief would result in damnation unless you’re denying that unbelief is sin, which would contradict the scripture.