Does Jesus Love You? Hate Your? Conditionally So?

My boss is going to really be disappointed when I tell him I don't understand science. And a little confused too since my actions prove otherwise.

I wonder how my career will turn out if I take your advice and quit making observations and telling others what I see?

 

Prod, still waiting on that cite for 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection.

Your Christian credibility would be better if you stopped making things up.

 

monahorns, you continue to dance around the post.

Why?

I'm sure quite a few people are disappointed in your understanding of science.

But I'm game. Is there anyone here who can help mona defend his statement? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

1 Corinthians 15:1-9

1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.


This isn't even a complete list. Check the end of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John for more.

 

One person, Paul, said that.

I don't think you're going to find much in the gospels.

So, one guy said there were 500 eyewitnesses? That's it? if true then why don't the gospels mention it? Hmmm.

Paul was a first-class huckster, a carnival barker nonpariel.

It is amusing, even bemusing, that the "faithful" have amazingly low evidence standards when it comes to stories contained within their myth-text, yet they (many) refuse to accept evolution, which has incredible amounts of evidence.

 

Perham1, you asked for the citing, you didn't say there had to be multiple or that Paul was off limits.

 

OK it's official, Perham can stop posting, I'll just post for him. It's gotten that easy to predict his responses.

 

The reasoning is very circular.

Why is the bible true? Because the bible says it is true.

How do we know that a person arose from the dead? Because the bible says so, and the bible is true because it says it's true.

I'm still agog at Monahorns whole science/eyewitness testimony debacle. I like it actually. It's fun when we get such ridiculous statements.

Anyhoo, have you got some more cites from the gospels on there being 500 witnesses?

 

Perham1, you asked for the citing, you didn't say there had to be multiple or that Paul was off limits.

True.

 

And oh by the way, someone has come to my defense!

From wikipedia:

---

 

I have another question, not that I expect an answer because you've ignored every other question I've asked.

Why do you see a distinction between the "gospels" and the epistles? Why is it so much more important that certain things be written in those? Maybe you could explain the difference between the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the rest of the New testament in terms of their validity, acceptance, authorship or any other differentiation you seem to see.

A second question: On what do you base your objections to Paul? Is it the quote by Jefferson? Or Schweitzer? Can you actually articulate what their issues were with Paul or are you just going to use the talking points?

 

Off the top of my head I can think of four major world religions that essentially have a single man who founded them; Judaism -Abraham, Christianity-Jesus, Islam-Muhammed, Buddhism- The Buddha...

Interestingly enough, all four of those men died, and we know where they died. They are all still revered by large groups of followers. There is one major distinction though. With Abraham, Muhammed, and Buddha, we know where their tombs are because they were recorded and there are massive monuments to their lives and to their deaths.
We don't even know where Jesus' tomb was. Why would the earliest followers of Jesus not pay homage to his place of burial? Why would no one in the early church mark or make some notation as to where Jesus' body was buried?

 

Why do you see a distinction between the "gospels" and the epistles?

Well, if Paul mentions 500 eyewitnesses, but the gospels do not (or do not come close to that number) then that is why I draw a distinction for this purpose.

Are you also aware that the gospels contradict each other in many areas? So much for "inerrant", huh? Just take a look at the story of Jesus on the cross and his last moments.

Paul was a self-loathing Jew who had temporal lobe epilespy. I have nothing against brain-damaged self-loathing Jews. They can be fascinating people. It doesn't mean I accept their visions or versions of god, though.

Paul, and Jesus most likely, were probably also homosexual. I'm not saying with each other, so don't get worried. Paul was at least a woman-hater.

 

Off the top of my head I can think of four major world religions that essentially have a single man who founded them; Judaism -Abraham, Christianity-Jesus....

Paul did more to "found" Christianity than did Jesus.

 

Why do you believe the Bible is true? Because you read the accounts and are persuaded by them (John 20:31). Why do you believe the Bible is false? Because you read the accounts and are not persuaded by them.

It's pretty simple.

To you, perhaps. But your simplistic approach completely misses the crux of the matter. The bible contains truths. It is folly and silly to say the bible "is true". But the faithful must play out this charade because if they don't they are admitting their holy myth-text is, well, myth-text.

You evidently have never heard the child's refrain of "for the bible tells me so...."

 

I'm aware of plenty of claims to that effect.

I'm not talking about "claims" but contradictions.

You probably also are ignorant of the two creation stories contained in Genesis? Or can you also "explain away" those differences?

This is really what religion is for many people: a highly constructed house of cards by which they rationalize away the inconsistencies of their myth-text to maintain the illustion that it was crafted by god, or divinely by god.

I'm going to have to stop my educational seminar at this point. I hope you've learned something here today.

Good luck on your schoolwork, george.

 

Honestly, does your internet provider have some kind of a rule where if you post something that doesn't contain some sort of condescending remark or slanderous label, your service gets shut down?

It would help all of us if you could but get past the obvious pain, perhaps even jealousy, that so pervade your posts. I will pray that you receive contentment and peace from your god. At the moment, my god is Pee Wee Herman. He got an unfair rap with the whole masturbating in the movie house thing, but was fabulous with his Playhouse. Miss Yvonne and Captain Carl make up the remaining parts of my trinity.

Slanderous means spoken, btw. I think you mean libelous.

 

Wow, prod, after that last post I'm going to have get my Prayer Force! team going for you.

You are just an angst-filled little ball of denial and rationalization.

Does you religion allow you to take up yoga? Cuz the Southern Baptists think it's the devil. Try yoga if it won't send you to hell.

Namaste, prod.

 

Perham throws this out there, but probably couldn't cite a specific example if his life depended on it.

I really hate to bring up the whole "reading comprehension" thing but I provided a specific example.

Do you not read? Or do you not think? Both?