A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism

I find it interesting that so much weight is put into what Paul is supposed to have said. The man never even met Jesus yet he's supposed to have all this knowledge of his intentions and message.He's actually more important than Jesus, without him Christianity wouldn't exist at all. He didn't actually need Jesus to have lived at all to create the story we hear today. Everything he says is hearsay - and/or - invention.

Oh.

Such hubris! I can see your not having much respect for contemporary apologists---but having little or no respect for Paul smacks of uninformed arrogance. Where are your credentials? What do you do for a living? Sell cars?Sometimes, people have arguments from ignorance. Other times they have arguments from arrogance. So where do you get your information? At best it is biased opinion based on this whole idea that without "evidence" there is no case for Christianity.

Oh hello, Phat doesn't seem to know anything about Paul.Do you think he ever met Jesus?

He claims that Jesus talked to him. Critics say he made the story up, as likely also would you. But then, of course, you think its all made up from the getgo. I suppose you have a right to your opinion, but what makes me mad is that you have studied this stuff so little. It almost seems as if you form your position on the fly, citing the absence of evidence with evidence of absence (or made up stories). Im just challenging your credentials. Not that it's necessarily a bad argument...simply a presumptuous one.

Paul never met Jesus. Below is a chunk of stuff from this site

quote:

---

Got Questions Ministries seeks to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by providing biblical, applicable, and timely answers to spiritually related questions through an internet presence."

---

I thought I'd use information from this evangelical source so that you can at least trust its motives as you doubt mine.

quote:

---

None of these considerations in any way establish that Paul had seen or heard Jesus personally prior to His atoning death at Calvary. We cannot say for sure whether or not Paul had ever met Jesus.

---

If you read more balanced accounts you'll get a quite different picture of Paul than the one you appear to have in your head. Do you ever read anything other than theocratic sites, stuff that deals with historicity?

Sometimes. My assumption was that he had not. The only way that Paul met Jesus in spirit is because the account says that Jesus talked with him, and we know that Jesus had died. I suppose a mythicist such as Richard Carrier would say that the story was embellished. An apologist would likely claim that It *was* Jesus whom Paul talked to after being struck blind. My rudimentary of understanding the dogma would tell me that the Trinity is not composed of interchangeable parts...each essence has a distinct character. Thus for a voice to speak to Paul after Jesus death would infer what exactly?

Right so where did all that righteous indignation come from?Paul never met Jesus, yet the Christian church would not exist without him. Everything real world that he bases his missionary work on is hearsay.

He met Jesus in Spirit.

So he's reputed to have said. In fact he had many 'visions' one of which had him ascended into heaven. But he never met Jesus or heard him speak anywhere outside his own head. Nothing can be made of that other than he suffered from delusions.Unlike Jesus though, there's a reasonable amount evidence that he actually existed or at least that someone we call Paul existed and wrote things down. In fact four different individuals wrote what is now attributed to Paul but don't let that bother you.

No, there is no evidence left behind. You just like to say there is. Let's do a comparison between the gospels and Harry Potter. This is from Matthew:

quote:

---

Matthew 28:2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.

---

There is no evidence supporting anything in that passage.This is from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone:

quote:

---

Harry saw it. In a great rush of excitement he dived downward after the streak of gold. Slytherin Seeker Terence Higgs had seen it, too. Neck and neck they hurtled toward the Snitch ‐ all the Chasers seemed to have forgotten what they were supposed to be doing as they hung in midair to watch.

---

There is no evidence supporting anything in that passage, either. First you argued that there was evidence left behind, and now you're arguing that such events left no evidence behind, including actual historical events like Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. You can't even keep your arguments consistent. You're just saying whatever's expedient that pops into your head.Anyway, based upon your second argument, the lack of evidence, we agree that events with no evidence should be questioned. Historians, many of them and some of them contemporary, wrote of Caesar, and Caesar wrote a great deal himself about his life and military campaigns. There are multiple independent sources for the history of Rome, which is not true of the gospels. About the crossing of the Rubicon, how did Caesar reach Rome if he didn't cross it? If he remained on the other side of the Rubicon, how did he enter Rome with his legion, chase Pompey toward Spain, become dictator, and conduct all his subsequent campaigns. What evidence? You have a made up and fantastical story about amazing events that somehow completely escaped the notice of history. You actually have four stories that draw upon an earlier version and upon each other. And you have Paul's epistles that agree with very little in the gospels. Where Jesus is concerned the NT is not a history. If the gospels (lowercase) are evidence, cite some specific piece of gospel evidence so that we may discuss it. Science provides even less than "no support." It says that your miracles are unlikely in the extreme. You keep repeating this without addressing the rebuttals. In the end you just ignore the rebuttals and say stuff like, "I stand by what I said," which is just nolo contendere. Then why do you keep arguing for the historicity of the gospels if it's merely something you accept on faith? Of course we objectively know the gospels (lowercase - just can't keep your little finger off that shift key, can you) exist. And we objectively know the Harry Potter books exist. That they objectively exist is not objective evidence for any of their content. This shouldn't have to be explained. In other words, two of them state, "Trust me," and your answer is, "Okay, sure." So by your own admission the objective existence of the gospels is not objective evidence of their content, which must be accepted on faith. History is not accepted on faith. The gospels are not history.--Percy

I disagree here. The gospels are evidence and the JK Rowling books are kind of evidence too.The issue is how reliable are they? The Rowling books are explicitly stated by the author to be unreliable evidence (i.e., fiction) for the existance of Hogwarts.The gospels might therefore be taken as a tich more "reliable" than the Harry Potter series.But, as you suggest (but could be clearer about), it takes other sources of evidence to support a written work as reliable.In addition, other than some minor things (e.g., the warning about the ides of march), the written material from Roman times is not flooded with magic and the supernatural which is part of the evidence against the reliability of the gospels.So I agree with GDR, the NT is evidence. However, it is a demonstration of how weak his case is because it is such obviously poor evidence.

I discussed this already in my earlier reply to you, Message 298. If you just missed it then the answers lie there. If you ignored it then I don't understand.--Percy

Please read what I wrote. I did not say that there is no evidence left behind. I simply said that the evidence is contained in written accounts. Historical events usually don't leave physical evidence behind. Yes, there is written evidence of Caesar's crossing the Rubicon.You then go on to argue that the evidence for the crossing is stronger as there are independent sources confirming it. What you are in essence saying is that the evidence for the crossing is stronger than the evidence for the resurrection. I'll take that as true, and will even add that the crossing requires less evidence as there is nothing in that that calls for the suspension of scientific laws.However, regardless in saying what you said you are saying that the Gospels (I capitalize it out of respect), are evidence, but just very weak evidence. I'm not sure why you are asking this but the whole NT exists because of the resurrection. Here is one account.

quote:

---

On the Road to Emmaus
13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him. 17 He asked them, What are you discussing together as you walk along?They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days? 19 What things? he asked. About Jesus of Nazareth, they replied. He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus. 25 He said to them, How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory? 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. 28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over. So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us? 33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon. 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

---

I know that you will reject this account on numerous grounds. However it does show that the compiler of the Gospel is confirming Jesus' resurrection. I have gone into the details before and they are refuted. You obviously totally reject my beliefs largely based on your belief that science dictates that the resurrection can't possibly be historical. Fair enough. I believe that there is reality beyond the world of science. It becomes a matter of belief and if it is considered as an impossibility in the first place there isn't a lot of point in trying to present the case all over again. I've done that numerous times over the years. I don't expect to convince anyone that isn't already convinced. It is just an attempt to put my position out there. I believe that the resurrection is historical. I don't have conclusive evidence that I am correct. However, I have faith that I am correct, and with that faith I understand Jesus' life and message to be representative of a God of love, and then work out what that means to my life and how I live it. No, the content is objective evidence but we subjectively come to a conclusion about their veracity. If we come to the conclusion that the resurrection is historical we have varying degrees of faith in our conclusion. Edited by Admin, : Fix first quote. It was originally attributed to Percy but was actually from GDR.

This is closer to Unitarianism than Anglicanism, and to science fiction than to either. Yeah, like their focus on the fantastical. You're just repeating yourself while ignoring what I already said in reply to this. Have you forgotten, or is this some weird kind of debating strategy? This is just more "I stand by what I said," more nolo contendere. Two questions: 1) Why do you mention this but then say nothing about it? 2) How is this rebuttal to the fact that miracles are one of the identifying characteristics of religion? That miracles are a common element of many religions is just common knowledge, not something that requires study. You're being evasive. Now you're in denial.Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." You're constructing your own fantasy world and then telling yourself that it's real.--Percy