I am proud to be a Christian Fundamentalist.

a reply to: Akragon

Regardless... IF Paul had been an actual witness to his Christ... there is no doubt that it would have been mentioned...

Why? There were disciples of Jesus present as well and they weren't mentioned, John and James were present. Peter was the one who didn't go into the trial because of fear.

You're just adding speculated evidence to a case that doesn't need any...

You act like I'm spreading wild arbitrary conjecture. What I said is very logical and safe to assume considering the paradigm that existed in 1st century Israel with a rabbi and his disciples. They followed their rabbi everywhere and partook in every aspect of their lives. I didn't say Paul would have participated in the trial, but would have witnessed it in the gallery of observers.

Gamaliel was the head of the Sanhedrin in 32 A.D., the trial took place in the hall of the Sanhedrin.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Like I said, Paul of all people would have mentioned it some where in his writing... Its blatantly obvious considering the way he writes... Paul would have said, I was there at his trial... without a shadow of a doubt

He liked to brag about his past, good or bad... He even had the nerve to claim to be blameless which was an obvious lie...

IF Paul ever actually saw Jesus... Even from a distance... Even walking by miles away, he definitely would have added it somewhere in his writing...

He wasn't anywhere near Jesus, ever... He likely never even heard of him until he met steven...

Unless his teacher gave him the lowdown of his trial...

a reply to: Akragon

Like I said, Paul of all people would have mentioned it some where in his writing... Its blatantly obvious considering the way he writes... Paul would have said, I was there at his trial... without a shadow of a doubt

How did he ever "brag" about his past? This is the same Paul who condemned himself as the greatest sinner of all history. He changed his name from a very proud name after Israel's first king (Saul) to a name that meant "small" (Paul). He is one of the old NT authors who mentions he struggles with sin. "I do what I don't want to do and do not do what I should do".

Your reasoning is clouded because you have contempt for Paul. What did you learn from the link I provided about the rabbi/disciple relationship from the 1st century Hebrew culture?

IF Paul ever actually saw Jesus... Even from a distance... Even walking by miles away, he definitely would have added it somewhere in his writing...

HE DID mention it. Have you even read Paul's epistles?

"Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?"

a reply to: NOTurTypical

No his conversion does not count as witnessing his "LIFE"...

And my thoughts or dislike for Pauls writing has nothing to do with it...

Its just a fact... Paul did not ever see Jesus while he was alive...

IF he did it would have been added to his writing....

And if you don't believe Paul clearly like to brag... specifically about Jesus among other things of course...

How can you claim to have read his writing either?

a reply to: Akragon

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

And if you don't believe Paul clearly like to brag

He called himself the "chief of sinners". That's not a braggadocios statement whatsoever.

OP and all other 'believers' comments on this thread are EXACTLY the reason that I despise religion. With every new post they are affirming my absolute disrespect for what they are trying to save.

I am a genuinely nice person, I have made mistakes but I learned from them, I sometimes do things wrong but that is part of being human. I know right from wrong without the help of a very outdated book. I really do. I know it's hard to believe when you are in the need of being ruled by an unseen being but there are nice people out there, doing the right thing, all without a god. O.O

What do I think of god? To me it doesn't exist, so I have no opinion about it.

If You ask what I think of the thing described in the bible, then I have to shudder and say that I would NEVER believe in something that happily lets me rot in eternity for some human mistake or can punish me in ways my loving parents would be horrified about.

You believers have your fingers in your ears to everything that is being said to you, we read your weak wafflings and think about them, then reply with a logical answer, yet you cannot be told any logic.

Like someone said earlier. Why don't you just open a church somewhere and have a circle-jerk without any sane inputs, that way we don't have to waste our time trying to talk sense into you and you could say whatever you want and be adored by others on your level.

End of my rant, will not participate in fruitless discussions.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Gamaliel was the head of the Sanhedrin in 32 A.D., the trial took place in the hall of the Sanhedrin.

There's a problem with dating the death of Jesus Christ at 33 CE, as John the Baptist didn't die until the year 36 CE.

A puzzle for readers is that Josephus' description of John the Baptist occurs several paragraphs after his description of Jesus (18.5.2 116 compared to 18.3.3 63), implying that John came later in time; but it is important in the gospels that John appeared before Jesus so as to announce him. When, exactly, does Josephus state that John arose?

He is not at all clear, as is often the case for events that occurred before his time. Even when Josephus is precise about dates he can frequently shown to be somewhat off (as when he gives the length of the reigns of Roman emperors). So any conclusions about John from this passage must be taken cum grano salis.

Having said that, it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE, which is at least 6 years later than what is expected from the New Testament, and after the crucifixion of Jesus. This date is seen as follows. Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas's daughter, left him. If so, then John did not have much time between the moment people were aware Herod was remarrying and the start of the battle with Aretas, for John was already dead before the battle. Josephus gives several indications that the battle occurred in 36 CE:

He states that the quarrel with Aretas sprang up "about the time" (Ant. 18.5.1. 109) that Herod's brother Philip died in 34 CE (Ant. 18.4.6 106).
During this time Herod's brother Agrippa had gone to Rome "a year before the death of Tiberius" (Ant18.5.3 126), which places Agrippas's departure in 36 CE.

Soon after the battle, the Syrian commander Vitellius was ordered by Tiberius to attack Aretas, whereupon Vitellius marched through Judea with his army, pausing in Jerusalem to placate the Jews and to sacrifice at a festival (probably Passover). On the fourth day of his stay in Jerusalem he learned of the death of Tiberius, which had occurred on March 16 37 CE (and it could have taken up to a month for Jerusalem to get the news). This puts the battle in the winter of 36/37 CE.

Vitellius' action against Aretas must have occurred between his action against the Parthians, under Tiberius' orders, and the death of Tiberius. The Parthian war occurred in 35 and 36 CE, as indicated both by Josephus and by the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius. (Herod the Tetrarch assisted Vitellius in negotiations between Tiberius and the Parthian king.)
josephus.org...

a reply to: Akragon

Its nothing but speculation that Paul was at his trial... In fact, he never met Jesus...

No , it is not speculation that Saul was at the trial of Jesus. It is written history that Saul of Tarsus was a Hebrew of Hebrews which means that he was of the tribe of Benjamin and spoke Hebrew. Most other Jews had adopted the Greek language and most could not understand Hebrew. The school of Gamaliel (Hillel) upheld Torah to the letter while the school of Shammai was always a liberal movement from Torah. Saul used both the Septuagint and Hebrew as he was fluent in multiple languages. Saul graduated from the university of Gamaliel and was a appointed member of the Sanhedrin and was so regarded as a most brilliant scholar of Torah. At this time of Jesus' trial Gamaliel was the Nasi and Saul, his graduated pupil, was appointed to succeed Gamaliel in his retirement.

The trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin of 71 members was in full account that day. We know this by the recorded number of votes. Those were 40 to 31 for acquittal. By this we know that Saul was one and also that he did in fact vote for the death of Jesus by stoning. We know this by the Roman authority Saul had in persecuting Christians. It is not certain that Gamaliel voted the death penalty but more than likely he did.

By this the odds are astronomically favored that Saul had seen and judged Jesus but not necessarily spoke with Jesus. This may explain the event of Saul knowing who Jesus was as he was struck with blindness.

Act 9:4-6
(4) And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (5) And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
(6) And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

As is written in verse 5 - "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest" -- with nothing questioned by Saul as to who this Jesus is, shows that Saul knew exactly who Jesus was by name and sight. Saul persecuted Jesus directly and indirectly and living 5-67 CE he would have been a young man of about 25 or 26 years of age at conversion.

a reply to: Seede

As is written in verse 5 - "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest" -- with nothing questioned by Saul as to who this Jesus is, shows that Saul knew exactly who Jesus was by name and sight.

He knew who Christians were, not who the Christ was...

You only prove my point... paul had no idea who Jesus was... IF he had been present he also would have likely be able to recognise who was speaking to him... He would have already heard him speak at the trial...

Both of you are only pushing speculation on a case where its simply not needed...

Jesus was an historical person... despite what some other members might say...

Paul did not ever see and or meet Jesus... that is a fact... We can speculate on this matter til the good lord returns, but the fact remains... there is NOTHING that says Paul ever met Jesus.... Or saw Jesus while he was alive...

Further more, IF one actually reads about Christianity's hero Paul before his conversion... they would find that Paul had what was called "a murderous rage against Christians"... And Pauls Teacher Gamaliel was considered a tolerant rabbi...

The very idea that he was chosen to succeed his teacher is completely preposterous... especially IF said rabbi had sons which in rabbinic tradition would almost always "apply" (so to speak) to succeed their Fathers

I realise that Christians love Paul, but pushing speculation is a waste of time with those who actually know the bible

They never met... its a fact...

Unless one considers the idea that Paul was taught directly by the risen Jesus truth... Which I do not

a reply to: NOTurTypical

He called himself the "chief of sinners". That's not a braggadocios statement whatsoever.

I didn't say it was...

I already gave you an example... He called himself blameless because of his life as a Pharisee, which was not only bragging about that life, but it was a lie...

He said he was "your Father" to the Corinthians, which was not only against what Jesus said... but bragging as well...

theres tons of examples of paul and his bragging... Anyone that can read can clearly see it...

Plus being the chief of sinners would also show that bragging was not beneath him

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Well the answer to both of those question is quite obviously no...

He made himself an apostle... And he did not ever see Jesus alive... Perhaps the risen Christ, which I highly doubt since we know Paul was a liar... even from this conversation

a reply to: Akragon

I already gave you an example... He called himself blameless because of his life as a Pharisee, which was not only bragging about that life, but it was a lie...

You're reading into the statement way too much. Paul was saying he followed the law and the rabbinical instructions to a T, and his argument was that if righteousness came by the law he would have been fine. He was arguing it was useless for righteousness.


Do you remember when he said he counted everything he had done and accomplished as "dung"?

"8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ," ~ Philippians 3:8

So by his own words we have a man who considers himself the worst man to ever live in the eyes of God, and considers all his past accomplishments and glory he achieved in the flesh as excrement from a pig.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I know what he meant brother... that does not mean he was not one to brag about his past as a Pharisee... Or even his deeds as a "reformed" man of Christ... He was quite proud of what he managed to accomplish

This is the man who promoted the idea that works mean nothing as well... So what you're saying is only going along with what he taught...

Faith alone...

a reply to: windword

cum grano salis.

^ that means "with a grain of salt".

a reply to: Akragon

that does not mean he was not one to brag about his past as a Pharisee...

You don't see that statement as a premise for his argument that his accomplishments under the law were self-righteous accomplishments and worthless in regards to true righteousness before God?

He was quite proud of what he managed to accomplish

No, he clearly said he counted all his past accomplishments as "dung". The word is a synonym for "poop" from a farm animal.

This is the man who promoted the idea that works mean nothing as well..

That's a straw man. He said they meant nothing for justification. He never said they meant nothing to honor the Lord as a reasonable service to Him, to glorify Him and to help others in need. He only said they were meaningless for salvation. He was always exhorting others to do good works after.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Don't give me your debating tactics crap lol...

there were two separate points made there...

I said as a "reformed man" he was proud of his accomplishments... Not proud of his past....

He clearly was not proud of his past... but that does not mean he wouldn't resort to bragging about it when trying to make his points in his writing...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

That doesn't show that Paul would have been there... In fact if he had been there, he probably would have mentioned it in at least one of his letters... Plus just because Pauls teacher was the head of the Sanhedrin does not mean Paul was part of it either... also something he would have mentioned... Considering he did mention being a Pharisee... that would have also been part of his "confessions", but neither of these issues were ever mentioned

Its nothing but speculation that Paul was at his trial... In fact, he never met Jesus...

But, unlike what tangerine is trying to say.... paul is the best witness to Jesus' life...

Which I mentioned on Page 1 of the "Reliable historical accounts of Jesus" thread...

Paul a witness to Jesus' life? As you said, he never met him.

I believe in God, The Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of The Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of The Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in The Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

Amen!


a reply to: DeathSlayer

It is atheists who we need to fear. Atheists have been the main cause of the most death and destruction worldwide, in the last 2000 years. It's disgusting actually. It is FAR, far greater than the minuscule amount killed "in the name of Religeon". The two death counts aren't even close. Like 300:1

Beware of atheists, they're bad for a civilized society's health.

Source: Hawaii.edu


a reply to: DeathSlayer

a reply to: Ignatian

It is atheists who we need to fear. Atheists have been the main cause of the most death and destruction worldwide, in the last 2000 years.

Nonsense! There has NEVER been a war waged in the name of Atheism. Now, wars/battles and genocide waged in the name of Jesus Christ, the casualties are too numerous to count!

Huh?
Ever heard of Ummm,
Pol Pot?
Hitler?
Stalin?
Mao Tse Tung?
Kim Ill Sung?
Castro?
Napoleon?
Kim Jong?
Mussolini?

Name one atheist dictator who has NOT committed mass genocide.

And you'll say, "ya, but it wasn't in the name of atheism!!"

And I''ll yell BS at you all day. Read your history. Organized Religeon stood in their way, and we all know their methods of getting rid of opposition.

Thats some mighty fine company you've aligned with.

300:1 Tough to swallow huh?

Too numerous to count? Well, it's been studied. Look it up, I've given you a source to start.




a reply to: windword