Evidence for God from Science

Splitted from Was Paul a False Apostle http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 22&t=40000 by a moderator

PaulSacramento wrote:The only people that have issues with Paul seem to be those that are trying to discredit Christianity and since most have come to the correct conclusion that Christ IS a historical figure and "untouchable" in that regard, they try to put the emphasis on Paul and say that HE created Christianity, that His message was different than Christ's and that he wasn't even a jew.
of course ALL those arguments fail miserably if a you simply read the NT and what Luke and Peter say about Paul.

Edit that to read "seem to you".

As for Jesus being a historical figure, sure. That does not mean that all tales told of him are true.

Simply reading the bible gives us 38,000 sects and bible forums full of different readings.

Audie,

Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

RickD wrote:Audie,

Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

make that a was.

Why dont you ask the 38000 sects about that?

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Audie,

Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

make that a was.

Why dont you ask the 38000 sects about that?

You no doubt understand the implied fallacy here.

In any case, I doubt there are 3800 different interpretations as to who Jesus is, and even if there were it doesn't relieve the responsibility of reaching your own conclusion. He's much more interested in who you say He is rather than deferring to some other interpretation.

But this thread is about Paul.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The only people that have issues with Paul seem to be those that are trying to discredit Christianity and since most have come to the correct conclusion that Christ IS a historical figure and "untouchable" in that regard, they try to put the emphasis on Paul and say that HE created Christianity, that His message was different than Christ's and that he wasn't even a jew.
of course ALL those arguments fail miserably if a you simply read the NT and what Luke and Peter say about Paul.

Edit that to read "seem to you".

As for Jesus being a historical figure, sure. That does not mean that all tales told of him are true.

Simply reading the bible gives us 38,000 sects and bible forums full of different readings.

I think you mean that reading the bible gives different interpretations, not readings.

Of course that would be the case, I would be worried if EVERYONE came to the same exact conclusion on everything !
Now THAT would be cause for concern !

Rob wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Audie,

Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

make that a was.

Why dont you ask the 38000 sects about that?

You no doubt understand the implied fallacy here.

In any case, I doubt there are 3800 different interpretations as to who Jesus is, and even if there were it doesn't relieve the responsibility of reaching your own conclusion. He's much more interested in who you say He is rather than deferring to some other interpretation.

But this thread is about Paul.

Yeah I do. Someone wants to twit me with a question, I can do it back.

i have my thoughts about who Jesus may have been but it takes more than that to get me to write a treatise.

Audie wrote:

Rob wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Audie,

Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

make that a was.

Why dont you ask the 38000 sects about that?

You no doubt understand the implied fallacy here.

In any case, I doubt there are 3800 different interpretations as to who Jesus is, and even if there were it doesn't relieve the responsibility of reaching your own conclusion. He's much more interested in who you say He is rather than deferring to some other interpretation.

But this thread is about Paul.

Yeah I do. Someone wants to twit me with a question, I can do it back.

i have my thoughts about who Jesus may have been but it takes more than that to get me to write a treatise.

Audie,

It's a simple question. Please answer it. Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Rob wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Audie,

Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

make that a was.

Why dont you ask the 38000 sects about that?

You no doubt understand the implied fallacy here.

In any case, I doubt there are 3800 different interpretations as to who Jesus is, and even if there were it doesn't relieve the responsibility of reaching your own conclusion. He's much more interested in who you say He is rather than deferring to some other interpretation.

But this thread is about Paul.

Yeah I do. Someone wants to twit me with a question, I can do it back.

i have my thoughts about who Jesus may have been but it takes more than that to get me to write a treatise.

Audie,

It's a simple question. Please answer it. Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

That would be who he was.

IMHO, a man fluffed up to heroic proportions by story tellers.

Audie wrote:

i have my thoughts about who Jesus may have been but it takes more than that to get me to write a treatise.

RickD wrote:

Audie,

It's a simple question. Please answer it. Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Audie wrote:
That would be who he was.

IMHO, a man fluffed up to heroic proportions by story tellers.

Thank You for answering Audie.

Now are you open to discussing this? Are you absolutely set on that belief?

Do you realize if you are wrong, you are eternally lost? Does that matter to you?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

i have my thoughts about who Jesus may have been but it takes more than that to get me to write a treatise.

RickD wrote:

Audie,

It's a simple question. Please answer it. Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Audie wrote:
That would be who he was.

IMHO, a man fluffed up to heroic proportions by story tellers.

Thank You for answering Audie.

Now are you open to discussing this? Are you absolutely set on that belief?

Do you realize if you are wrong, you are eternally lost? Does that matter to you?

Of course Im not absolutely set. Im more a probabilities sort.

I've considered the probability that its true I will go to eternal fire via "allah' for letting my hair be seen in public.

I wonder why you were so disinclined to a straight answer when asked about your statement that science had proved abio is impossible?

not too late, ya know.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

i have my thoughts about who Jesus may have been but it takes more than that to get me to write a treatise.

RickD wrote:

Audie,

It's a simple question. Please answer it. Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Audie wrote:
That would be who he was.

IMHO, a man fluffed up to heroic proportions by story tellers.

Thank You for answering Audie.

Now are you open to discussing this? Are you absolutely set on that belief?

Do you realize if you are wrong, you are eternally lost? Does that matter to you?

Of course Im not absolutely set. Im more a probabilities sort.

I've considered the probability that its true I will go to eternal fire via "allah' for letting my hair be seen in public.

I wonder why you were so disinclined to a straight answer when asked about your statement that science had proved abio is impossible?

not too late, ya know.

Maybe because I worded it wrong.

If you look at the thread, I corrected myself to say what I more accurately meant.

And, I'm glad you are still open. God will show you if you are willing to see the truth. it just takes some people longer than others. Simple folks like myself aren't as stubborn as you genius science types.

How one can read the Gospel and come out with this view:

IMHO, a man fluffed up to heroic proportions by story tellers.

Is beyond me.

There is nothing heroic about what Jesus did UNLESS He actually did it because He didn't save anyone in a DIRECT ACT ( ie: take a bullet, kill 100's of people to save his country men, etc).
Jesus did NOTHING that would be considered heroic by the standards of His time ( or any time when you think of it) and as a matter of fact, they way He died was considered a very shameful death, one of the worse ( if not the worse).
Unless of course His act of sacrifice DID INDEED save ALL who believe in Him.

PaulSacramento wrote:How one can read the Gospel and come out with this view:

IMHO, a man fluffed up to heroic proportions by story tellers.

Is beyond me.

There is nothing heroic about what Jesus did UNLESS He actually did it because He didn't save anyone in a DIRECT ACT ( ie: take a bullet, kill 100's of people to save his country men, etc).
Jesus did NOTHING that would be considered heroic by the standards of His time ( or any time when you think of it) and as a matter of fact, they way He died was considered a very shameful death, one of the worse ( if not the worse).
Unless of course His act of sacrifice DID INDEED save ALL who believe in Him.

For a start, one needs to know what is meant by / what I meant by "heroic proportions"


a. Impressive in size or scope; grand: heroic undertakings.
b. Of a size or scale that is larger than life: heroic sculpture.


the scope and scale of the Jesus story is that of one who is "larger than life'.

But lets not get bogged in points of style here.

The part in bold will do. He became something else in the retelling, my opinion, of course. You have your opinion, neither of us has a time machine.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

i have my thoughts about who Jesus may have been but it takes more than that to get me to write a treatise.

RickD wrote:

Audie,

It's a simple question. Please answer it. Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Audie wrote:
That would be who he was.

IMHO, a man fluffed up to heroic proportions by story tellers.

Thank You for answering Audie.

Now are you open to discussing this? Are you absolutely set on that belief?

Do you realize if you are wrong, you are eternally lost? Does that matter to you?

Of course Im not absolutely set. Im more a probabilities sort.

I've considered the probability that its true I will go to eternal fire via "allah' for letting my hair be seen in public.

I wonder why you were so disinclined to a straight answer when asked about your statement that science had proved abio is impossible?

not too late, ya know.

Maybe because I worded it wrong.

If you look at the thread, I corrected myself to say what I more accurately meant.

And, I'm glad you are still open. God will show you if you are willing to see the truth. it just takes some people longer than others. Simple folks like myself aren't as stubborn as you genius science types.

Ok, for clarity, does what you actually meant turn out to to be the opposite of what you said?

You did say science had shown abio to be impossible.

I have a certain flair for sarcasm, but I dont really want to play razors with you. Could you cut it out?

Audie wrote:
Ok, for clarity, does what you actually meant turn out to to be the opposite of what you said?

You did say science had shown abio to be impossible.

I have a certain flair for sarcasm, but I dont really want to play razors with you. Could you cut it out?

I wouldn't say opposite. "Unsupportable by science" isn't quite the opposite of "impossible scientifically".

Even though sarcasm is part of my dna, I'll listen to your admission that you cannot compete with my sarcasm , and I will do my best tone down the sarcasm with you.