A logical problem witih "Hell"

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChesterJohn

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Those two books that you have cited, Acts, credited to Luke and Colossians, written supposedly by Paul, did not ever meet Jesus while he was alive.



St. Luke was born in Antioch. He was a gentile doctor who was a good and kind man. He heard about Jesus from the great apostle Paul and soon became a Christian.


Also, talking about witness who claim to have seen the "ghost of Jesus," after his death, is not the same as recounting the things he actually said and did when he alive.

Luke and Paul never met Jesus. Paul distorts and co-opts the teaching of Jesus for his own prideful gain.


If I am not mistaken their Bible does not say they saw a ghost.

See how easy it is for us to interject our opinions and not make a logical argument using their authority. You added your opinion that it is a ghost. You bring external opinions that have no basis of factual evidence and try to make it their authority. You will not win them by your lack of logical process and mere opinions you will only alienate them. show proof it was a ghost don't just make unsupported opinions and present them as fact.


Logical argument? What is logical about seeing a dead man? What else could it be? A poltergeist?

If Jesus died, and then appeared before 100's of people, what did they see if not a ghost? Why does the Catholic Church speak of the "Holy Ghost'?

Opinion has nothing to do with it. If people saw Jesus after he was already dead, then they saw a ghost.




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 


Here's a start.


1 Corinthians 4:15
For you can have 10,000 instructors in Christ, but you can't have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.


From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:


For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ,.... Or "schoolmasters"; by whom he means the false teachers, whom, for argument sake, he admits to be instructors in Christ, or ministers of his, as in 2 Corinthians 11:23 and who were many, and of whose number the Corinthians boasted; though they were not so numerous as here supposed; for the expression is hyperbolical: perhaps some reference may be had to the multitude of schoolmasters, tutors, and governors, and who also were called "fathers", which those that were Jews of this church at Corinth had before they believed in Christ; as the members of the great sanhedrim, the great number of doctors, wise men, Scribes and Pharisees, who pretended to instruct them: now though it should be allowed, that the present teachers among them were instrumental in instructing them further in the knowledge of Christ; or as the Arabic version reads it, "in the love of Christ"; yet they had no hand in their conversion; the apostle first preached the Gospel to them, and ministerially laid Christ the foundation among them, and directed them unto him, and was the minister by whom they believed; these teachers at most and best built on his foundation, and that only wood, hay, and stubble; and whereas they were only a sort of schoolmasters, and not fathers, they taught with mercenary views, and for lucre's sake, and with severity, as such men do


In other words, Paul isn't boasting -- he's demonstrating the authority of his words, above those of the false teachers that were trying to steer the Corinthians wrong.


How is Paul's death any more or less dramatic that the 10's of 1000's of men and women who were killed during the Jewish wars, at the same time in history?


I don't remember saying anything about drama. I asked where his gain was, as you stated, in being a Christian. Paul was beaten, stoned, imprisoned and eventually executed, I fail to see how any of that is to his gain.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 





To say they never met Jesus with no proof is only a opinion. Can you prove they never met.


Bible scholars generally agree that Luke never met Jesus. Can you prove that Luke even existed and wrote those Bible books?

LUKE and PLUTARCH



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


A poltergeist is a violent spirit, typically latent telekinetic talent unleashed by emotional turmoil that hasn't been properly handled. However, it can sometimes be a thoughtform that feeds on negative vibrations such as fear, anger, or depression. Just for future reference.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
If people saw Jesus after he was already dead, then they saw a ghost.


A ghost is a non-corporeal being, but the Bible states very clearly that Christ had a physical body, so he wasn't a ghost. If you believe from the Bible that people saw Jesus after the resurrection, then you must also believe from the Bible that he had a physical body.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Ghosts are capable of taking physical form. This is documented, as in Haunting in Connecticut, based on a true story. But who's to say he didn't project himself directly into their minds, so that they experienced the sensations of contacting flesh, but couldn't tell the difference between a psychic illusion and physical reality?
edit on 14-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





In other words, Paul isn't boasting -- he's demonstrating the authority of his words, above those of the false teachers that were trying to steer the Corinthians wrong.


Opinion and eyes and ears of the beholder.

To claim to be the ultimate authority over the interpretation of his place, and his interpretation of the purpose of the life and death of Jesus to be above all others, looks and sounds like pride to me.


How is Paul's death any more or less dramatic that the 10's of 1000's of men and women who were killed during the Jewish wars, at the same time in history?



I don't remember saying anything about drama. I asked where his gain was, as you stated, in being a Christian. Paul was beaten, stoned, imprisoned and eventually executed, I fail to see how any of that is to his gain.


Just because his fate was less than what he had hoped for or anticipated, that doesn't mean he didn't enter the fray with a prideful and exploitative purpose.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen
 


Ghosts are capable of taking physical form. This is documented, as in Haunting in Connecticut, based on a true story.


You mean the movie?

The guy that wrote the book that it was based on says it's not true.

For the record, I neither believe nor disbelieve in ghosts. But the record is clear, Jesus wasn't a ghost.


They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." (Luke 24:37-39, NIV)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
If people saw Jesus after he was already dead, then they saw a ghost.


A ghost is a non-corporeal being, but the Bible states very clearly that Christ had a physical body, so he wasn't a ghost. If you believe from the Bible that people saw Jesus after the resurrection, then you must also believe from the Bible that he had a physical body.


You know what I believe. If Jesus was up and about, walking, talking, physically interacting with people and eating, he didn't die, he survived the ordeal.

If Jesus was dead, then what they saw was a ghost. If it was a ghost that could manipulate the physical plane, then he was a poltergeist.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 





In other words, Paul isn't boasting -- he's demonstrating the authority of his words, above those of the false teachers that were trying to steer the Corinthians wrong.


Opinion and eyes and ears of the beholder.

To claim to be the ultimate authority over the interpretation of his place, and his interpretation of the purpose of the life and death of Jesus to be above all others, looks and sounds like pride to me.


No, it isn't. Put the quote in context, if you don't believe me.


I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church. (1 Corinthians 4:14-17 NIV)


Where's the pride in urging people to follow in your example?


Just because his fate was less than what he had hoped for or anticipated, that doesn't mean he didn't enter the fray with a prideful and exploitative purpose.


Except that there's no evidence of it, and contrarian evidence. Here's an article on one instance: The Apostle Paul's humble spirit.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


But that's the whole point, isn't it? People say he died for our sins. Then they say he rose three days later, resurrected and as good as new. Doesn't that kind of defeat the point? Either he died or he didn't. You don't die and then come back. I'll give you five bucks for a coffee, then take that five bucks back as proof that I'm a good salesman. Oh, and you still have to give me that coffee or you'll be blacklisted.

What a joke.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Are you saying that the two are known to be the same person or is it just a theory? Luke is called Lucius in Romans 16:21, Plutarch was renamed Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus when he became a Roman citizen. I think it's very likely the two are the same person.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





Where's the pride in urging people to follow in your example?


That whole thing is condescending and prideful. I don't know how you can't see it.

I'm not going to someone apologetic opinion on Paul really was humble.

This isn't the thread to address the faults of Paul though. It's about the logic of hell.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by windword
 


Are you saying that the two are known to be the same person or is it just a theory? Luke is called Lucius in Romans 16:21, Plutarch was renamed Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus when he became a Roman citizen. I think it's very likely the two are the same person.


Just a theory. It's not something that I'm willing to invest a lot of time and effort into researching.

But I'm sticking to my premise that the writer of Luke and Acts, never met Jesus.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword
 


But that's the whole point, isn't it? People say he died for our sins. Then they say he rose three days later, resurrected and as good as new. Doesn't that kind of defeat the point? Either he died or he didn't. You don't die and then come back. I'll give you five bucks for a coffee, then take that five bucks back as proof that I'm a good salesman. Oh, and you still have to give me that coffee or you'll be blacklisted.

What a joke.


Ah, but he wasn't as good as new! He had holes in his hands and was very hungry!




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Plutarch did write biographies called Parallel Lives, so that's a big coincidence in my opinion. It lines up with the two being one. Interesting, I'll do the research myself. Thanks for bringing this up.


And I agree they never met Jesus, that's obvious.
edit on 14-12-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


HAHA! That is quite an ironic coincidence, isn't it!?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


VERY ironic.
It also lines up with my theory of Paul and Peter being the same person.
edit on 14-12-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Well, I think it can be reasonably said that due to the conflicting nature of the thread as it has proceeded thus far, the Bible and its contents can't be said to be as...erm, straight-forward as implied by popular consensus. As though there were any question to that effect



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
If people saw Jesus after he was already dead, then they saw a ghost.


A ghost is a non-corporeal being, but the Bible states very clearly that Christ had a physical body, so he wasn't a ghost. If you believe from the Bible that people saw Jesus after the resurrection, then you must also believe from the Bible that he had a physical body.


You know what I believe. If Jesus was up and about, walking, talking, physically interacting with people and eating, he didn't die, he survived the ordeal.

If Jesus was dead, then what they saw was a ghost. If it was a ghost that could manipulate the physical plane, then he was a poltergeist.


It could be just as easy to believe he actually rose from the dead.





new topics




 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join