Raf

I'm fine. I simply decline to entertain attempts to derail conversations by introducing ethereal, abstract definitions to terms no one has any trouble understanding.

Or Mr. Edward Hyde

I've learned to stop paying attention once the conversation starts going in that "words mean what I want them to vegetable" direction.

It is done. We are now in "Questioning Faith." Please check the original post on this thread; I am sure reasonable people will agree that this is where the thread belongs. Until this point, I have answered questions as though the Bible contains the definitive answers to the questions being asked. However, the original post contains a question the Bible cannot answer. I suppose it would be presumed that the atheist position is, of course he was a conman. But that's not really fair. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. But let's see what the Bible actually says about Paul. Paul wants us to believe (as we noted on another thread, or was it here?) that he did not learn the gospel from the apostles. He met them, according to Acts, but didn't discuss anything of significance with them. Or he didn't meet them until three years into his ministry, according to Galatians. That is not credible. Paul MUST HAVE talked to the apostles if he had information about the Last Supper. Where else would he have gotten that information? Yeah, God. Um, no. Remember that Paul is writing before the gospels were written, and he is adamant that he did not learn the gospels from the apostles. This is significant because the apostles are alive when Paul is writing. If he is lying, they could easily have called him out. They didn't. In case I am not being clear, I am insinuating that Paul invented the Last Supper and the gospel writers retconned that into the life of Jesus. It doesn't take much work to learn that Christians were not first to the table with a Eucharistic type of meal. Now, let's look back at everyone's behavior. Again, according to Paul: The apostles are very much concerned with preaching to Israel. Only Paul goes to the Gentiles. And this is a BIG DEAL. They have long discussions about the implications. Finally, they make it clear: Paul goes to the gentiles: the rest stick with Israel. WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY DO THAT IF JESUS TOLD THEM SPECIFICALLY TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO EVERY CREATURE AND DISCIPLE ALL NATIONS IN HIS NAME? The easiest biblical explanation is they were stubborn. The easiest explanation is, Jesus never gave any such instruction. If he had, they would have done it. Paul went to the Gentiles first because the original apostles never dreamed of taking it outside of Israel. They had no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise until Paul forced them to contend with the issue. THEN, afterwards, the church needed to have the mission to the Gentiles come from the lips of Jesus instead of "just" Paul. Suddenly, the post-resurrection appearances (all of which were written decades after Paul's ministry) contain Jesus giving clear and unambiguous instructions to preach the gospel to every f-ing thing that moves. No explanation is given for why the apostles don't follow that exceedingly clear instruction save the vague "zealous for the law" implications in Acts. But what about being told before that they were ministers to the circumcision? Doesn't matter. If the risen Christ tells you to do something that seems to conflict with the living Christ, you either ask him for clarification or you just up-front follow the new, clear instruction. Preach the gospel to every creature is pretty danged clear. They didn't seem to ask for clarification. And they didn't follow the instruction. Either they're stupid, or the new instruction is a fantasy ret-con designed to show the faith community that what Paul was doing was specifically what Jesus instructed. Except he didn't. Jews, who know their own scriptures and prophecies, were rejecting the Christian message, so Paul sold it to people more likely to buy it: Superstitious pagans who erected shrines to unknown gods just in case they missed anyone. It's easy to say Jesus fulfilled prophecies to people who did not know the context of those prophecies and could not determine for themselves it was a load of bunk. Jews know the Book of Daniel is a work of fiction. That's why Daniel is not counted among the prophets in Jewish Bibles. Law, Psalms and Prophets, remember? Daniel is counted among the Psalms. It's a work of literature, not history. It's not because Jews don't know their holy book as well as Christians do (the arrogance!). It's easy for Gentiles to be swayed by the prophecy that a virgin shall be with child, because they do not know the context of that prophecy, which was (a) fulfilled in its own time, (b) not referring to a "virgin" as we know the term and (c) not Messianic. Prophecy after prophecy in the New Testament applied to Jesus fails on any level of inspection. "Out of Egypt have I called my son" is not a Messianic prophecy -- it's not a prophecy at all! "He shall be called a Nazarene" is not a prophecy, Messianic or otherwise. Rachel weeping for children was not a Messianic prophecy. Isaiah 53 is not a Messianic prophecy! Jews know this. That is why they are not impressed by Jesus "fulfilling" non-prophecies. The easiest people to impress were people least familiar with Hebrew scriptures. That's why Christianity leaped so easily from being a Jewish sect to being a Gentile one. Fooling Jews about their own religion was a LOT more difficult than fooling superstitious pagans about the identity of their unknown God. Why Pul converted, we'll never know. He admits persecuting the church. Acts embellishes on that admission, but the author of Acts is a liar. He lied about Jesus' birth and he flat out contradicts Paul about Paul's own life. Who are you going to believe? Was Paul a con man? Hard to tell. The "road to Damascus" story comes to us second hand. His letters don't recount it. He clearly believes he's on a mission from God. But he can't possibly know the things he claims to know about Jesus and the gospel WITHOUT having obtained that information from the apostles -- unless... unless... unless he made it up. And THAT is why the epistles precede the gospels, historically. Jesus, insofar as he existed, was an itinerant preacher who made the wrong enemies and got himself killed. Paul is the one who elevated him. Why? Why did Joseph Smith find golden tablets? Why did VPW see snow on the gas pumps? Why did Charles T. Russell's math lead him to believe Christ would return at the end of the 19th century? Different people believed different Messianic claims in the First Century. It would appear Paul not only seized on the Messiah Y'Shua movement but entirely co-opted and seized control of it, to the chagrin of those who tried and failed to make it a significant movement within Judaism. The history was rewritten using Paul as a framework, not the other way around. The Jesus of history became the Jesus of Paul's legend. History's Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition. Paul took the crucifixion and declared it to be the work of spiritual forces on high -- no mention of Romans, Jews or Pilate. He didn't need it. No empty tomb. Who cares? People saw him. It's only when trying to relate it as a history that writers are compelled to fill in the blanks Paul did not consider necessary. Whose tomb? Joseph of the Place No One Heard of Before or Since. Who saw him first? She did. I mean they did. I mean he did. I mean... Why didn't he stay in one place? MAGIC! Did the 12 see him? Yes! All 12? Yes! Wait, no. I mean, Matthias was retroactively added to the 12 and... Mmm hmm.

wow. It's either Henry Jekyll or someone else

Questioning faith didn't exist in 2010. Nonetheless, we either move the thread or start a new one there. Your call.

I'm thinking Sherlock Holmes.

Pretty sure Smokey and the Bandit was not a remake though.

Speaking of which, Waysider, considering your opening post and your latest comments, should this thread be moved?

I was answering from a doctrinal perspective.

oops

There is an implication here that I took a question out of context and spun it. I'll leave it to readers to go back to the posts in question and decide if I did any such thing. Quite simply, Jesus told the apostles to preach the gospel, and he did not limit them to Israel first, reserving a special, later commission for Paul. Scripturally, Paul is special because he took "disciple all nations in my name" seriously. Despite having heard the clear instruction from the lips of the risen savior himself, the original 12 did not do what he said. Now, it could very well be that they thought of themselves as ministers to the circumcision, and that was certainly the case before the crucifixion. But if we are going to ask the question whether there was a clear Biblical directive for them to preach to the gentiles, the question has explicit Biblical answers. The apostles did not do what Jesus said to do. No amount of "but months earlier he said something else" changes the fact that after the resurrection, the biggest change in circumstance in the history of the world, Jesus changed the instruction and the apostles didn't do it. Why? Biblically, it's simple. The apostles weren't perfect. They were wrong not to go beyond Israel. He told them to and they didn't do it. Had to give Peter an amazing vision just to get him to preach the gospel to A gentile after he had already told all the apostles to disciple ALL NATIONS in his name. PETER! What made Paul special? He seems to be the only apostle who took that instruction seriously. That's not so hard. It allows scripture to tell its own story without pretending the apostles were obedient when they clearly fell short on one instruction. Doesn't make them bad people. But if they had done what Jesus specifically told them to do, Jesus wouldn't have needed to commission Paul for that particular purpose. Simple and scriptural.

Look, I am sorry that you asked a very specific question that the Bible very specifically answers and you have to be shown the answer from the Bible by an atheist who knows the book better than you do. But that is no excuse for you trying to make this thread about me. You really need to get back on topic. You asked a question. The Bible answered it. Accept the Bible's answer, or admit that you don't believe the book any more than I do.

you are off topic

You can't argue with statements of faith, but assertions of fact are subject to challenge. The Biblical story of Exodus is uncorroborated by history. If Moses existed, he would have left a gaping wound on Egyptian history -- one they would have had no choice but to document. Egypt would no more have forgotten Moses than the USA would forget Pearl Harbor or 9/11. What does Egyptian history say about Moses? Not a damn word. What about the Pharoah Moses defied? Well, we don't know who that is because the Israelite priest who concocted the story didn't have the wherewithal to name the Pharoah! He might as well have set the story in Atlantis. A real history would have named the Pharoah. So there was this Hebrew terrorist who led a slave revolt and in one night every firstborn in Egypt, including livestock, died. In one night. And Egypt didn't notice. No record of this nightmarish terror in all of Egyptian history. Sorry: the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when and where evidence would be expected. You can't say this empire-crippling incident happened and then shrug when the empire's histories make no mention of it. Moses is no more real than Paul Bunyan.

lol. Um... you haven't been paying attention. The first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses. They weren't written until the Babylonian exile. Check the authors? Is that a joke? Matthew didn't write Matthew. Whoever wrote Mark knew nothing about Palestinian geography. Luke flat out lied about the circumstances of Jesus' birth. And John tells stories so astonishing that it's inconceivable the other gospel writers would have ignored them. Check the authors? As if we have the slightest idea who wrote the Torah and the gospels! [Actuallyt they do have an idea who wrote the Torah... it just wasn't Moses].

The free vocalization line was funny though. Well played

Perseus existed. Hercules existed. Because I said so and I have a book that says they did. Sure.

The three things 1. Jesus was a Jew who preached Judaism to other Jews. 2. He was a messianic figure (one of many at the time) who preached an apocalyptic message focused on what he called the Kingdom of God. 3. He was arrested and executed by the Romans under Pilate. I'm not sure how much of the second point can be gleaned from "history" given that he excludes Christian sources when he said that. Nonetheless, I think he's probably right. I would add that Jesus probably really was from Nazareth (two gospel writers go to great, unrealistic, mutually exclusive pains to explain why someone from Nazareth was born in Bethlehem).

Can we get a viewer's digest summary for anyone who doesn't have time to sit through the video?

BUT YOU DO. What difference does it make if I believe it? YOU DO. On this thread, I am taking for granted that Paul said these things and that Jesus said these things, unless there is some need to question that. You asked for a scripture in which the 12 were instructed to preach to the Gentiles. I gave you one, and you have bent yourself into a pretzel at a Twizzler factory to deny the obvious -- Jesus absolutely DID tell the 12 to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Sadly, you are so embarrassed at being schooled by an atheist that you refuse to admit the Bible says what is says, and you're using MY unbelief to prove that YOUR Bible is wrong about what it says? I. have. every. right. to. post. on. this. thread. or. any. other. If you read my comment carefully, I did not say you are dumb as a brick (much as I would have been thrilled to do so). I said the apostles would have to be dumb as a brick to take a comment Jesus made that had nothing to do with preaching the gospel and apply it to undermine his extremely clear instruction to preach the gospel to every creature and make disciples of all the nations. And they would have to be that stupid. Easier explanation: Jesus said it. They didn't do it. Jesus gets Paul to step in where the original (well, the new and improved) 12 fell short. This fits the scriptural evidence without turning the 12 into quibbling idiots who don't know what "preach the gospel to every creature and make disciples of all nations" means. I do not understand why you are so unwilling to believe what Jesus said that you will cite my unbelief to justify your ignoring the red-letter words in your Bible.

Ok, TLC. Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that. I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or concern (I'm thinking another word might be appropriate here, but unfortunately it is against the rules to write it out) to address our points. That being said, if you would like to return to the topic of whether Jesus rose from the dead, and whether the evidence is adequate to reach that conclusion, feel free. If you'd rather talk about how much better you are than we because we've exhausted your unlimited supply of patience (a fruit of the spirit -- and yet you ran out of it), then be advised it will be handled accordingly.

You have to be dumb as a brick and deliberately distorting the words of Jesus to take a comment that is not about spreading the gospel and apply it in a way that absolves them of a specific instruction to spread the gospel. I don't think the problem is that I can't put myself in their shoes. The problem is that I respect their intelligence far more than you seem to.

I do that when I know the answer but I don't want to take the next turn. Now if you'll excuse me, I seriously need to find a Three Musketeers. Anyone know where I can find one? Human, you're up.

Another clue is when Jesus told the 12 specifically to make disciples of all nations in his name and preach the gospel to every creature. I swear he must have stuttered. The verse you cite is not even talking about preaching the gospel.