It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by bibledefender
Just out of interest how do we know for a fact that Paul was a prosecutor and then changed to a believer. Is there any actually recorded evidence that is not religious text.
Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by bibledefender
Is it a fact that Paul converted though?
You must put this through proper scientific procedure.
The Bible says Paul was a prosecutor who converted, now you need some corresponding evidence to corroborate that. Not something derived from the Bible but an actual record from when Paul was alive.
Going back to people who are just surviving today, they tend to be in the third world and have poor education, these people also tend to be religious. I guess people suffering need hope, something to believe in no matter how wrong it may be.
Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by bibledefender
I do apologise, I guess because the Bible is so absolutely crammed full of false statements and nonsense that when something is written that may actually be true it is hard to take it seriously.
Originally posted by bibledefender
Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by bibledefender
I do apologise, I guess because the Bible is so absolutely crammed full of false statements and nonsense that when something is written that may actually be true it is hard to take it seriously.
Again, lets assume for a second that there are false statements in the bible. Does it mean that what Paul said is false? You seem to be making a-priori statements with no historical evidence to back your position. So do you or do you not have historical e v i d e n c e that shows that Paul didn't convert as he himself states?
Now I never said that you put forth the theft theory. However you did put forth what Erhman said and adjusted it a little.
However, it still remains, why did he give up being a Pharisee
Likewise James?
So, when Paul says that Jesus was resurrected, he means physically.
For example, his traveling companions also saw light, heard the voice.
However, he didn't expect a resurrection to happen in the middle of history.
Paul DID make radical change in his views, for he considered Jesus God, and that he did resurrect physically.
So now you have to come up with something that accounts for that as well, that is ad hoc reasoning, because now you are piling one theory on top of another theory in order to explain the facts.
The resurrection is not ad hoc since it answers all of the facts at hand without piling one on top of another in order to explain the facts
Originally posted by bibledefender
Prove, using the scientific method that Abraham Lincoln was President. You cannot.
Fourth, in order to disprove the claim that Paul converted, what you need is e v i d e n c e that he didn't convert. Not just empty claims based upon a logical fallacy.
Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by mkmasn
Thank you for proving the fact that Lincoln was president.
That was one of the most ridiculous arguments for the bible I have ever heard and you easily dismissed it. Well done.
It's amazing how ludicrous the arguments of religious people are when it becomes clear to everybody else that religion is nonsense.
I don't think religion is nonsense,[/quoteion
I think that believing the bible is the literal word of God is nonsense.
You have to realize they each saw things differently and experienced the spiritual awakening differently.
Also if the theory explains the facts more so than alternative theories, then according to historical methods, it probably happened.
Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by mkmasn
I have to admit i'm positive that religion is nonsense.
It seems very convenient to me that every time the bible is incorrect then that part has to be taken as metaphorical. Why can't it just be taken as what it is, completely incorrect.
Also if so much is then metaphorical why not go the whole hog and call the religion metaphorical. It would make much more sense to say look we know there is no god but this book gives us a guide on how we want to live. I could accept the bible as a self help book but not a religion.
Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by mkmasn
What you don't seem to consider is that there actually may not be a god. If this is true and I strongly believe it is then all religion is wrong.edit on 2-9-2012 by GafferUK1981 because: (no reason given)