pasion of christ

[Psychotron]

What? I didn't see you say anything about Paul, or I certainly would have addressed that.

Correct you are, i thought i said Paul.

Why speak of something you know nothing about, as though you are an expert?

I know a lot more than you think. Just because I don't hold to your silly belief now doesn't mean I wasn't once drenched in it.

Why don't you "re-read" this? (if you've ever read it, that is) The APOSTLE Paul wrote it. After you read it, could you explain to me how he didn't believe in Christ's physical existence?

As for this, I will get back to you, one handed typing is slow, I recall this being brought up in a prior discussion, I need to find notes. I do remember there being a problem with the accuracy of this verse, something about how it doesn't appear in early manuscripts. The entire verse seems odd... "Why would the equation of this divine Savior with the recent Jesus of Nazareth not be a necessary and natural part of at least some of the faith declarations or even simple arguments and discussions we find in all the first century epistles? It is notably missing in 1 Corinthians 1:18f, where Paul is defending God's wisdom and the apparent folly of Christian doctrine, yet he feels no necessity to include a defence of the folly that a human being has been elevated to divinity."

[alphaman]

Correct you are, i thought i said Paul.



I know a lot more than you think. Just because I don't hold to your silly belief now doesn't mean I wasn't once drenched in it.

You can belive that my belief is silly if you want, but you haven't given any evidence of it being false. So in order for your accusation to be taken seriously, you will need to present a case. Empty statements mean nothing.

As for this, I will get back to you, one handed typing is slow, I recall this being brought up in a prior discussion, I need to find notes. I do remember there being a problem with the accuracy of this verse, something about how it doesn't appear in early manuscripts. The entire verse seems odd... "Why would the equation of this divine Savior with the recent Jesus of Nazareth not be a necessary and natural part of at least some of the faith declarations or even simple arguments and discussions we find in all the first century epistles? It is notably missing in 1 Corinthians 1:18f, where Paul is defending God's wisdom and the apparent folly of Christian doctrine, yet he feels no necessity to include a defence of the folly that a human being has been elevated to divinity."

Is the bold your "getting back to me"?

First, who said this? Can I get a reference?

Second, I didn't quote the 18th verse.

Third, it will certainly not stand on it's own. If it's in the context of saying that the physical Jesus didn't equate to the spiritual savior that's spoken of in the NT.... that's absolutely preposterous. I could fill up three pages with scripture references on that... that's the main message in the NT, and if you've ever been "drenched" in it, you know that as well.

[Psychotron]

You can belive that my belief is silly if you want, but you haven't given any evidence of it being false. So in order for your accusation to be taken seriously, you will need to present a case. Empty statements mean nothing.

Is the bold your "getting back to me"?

I am not going to lay down all the evidence for why such a belief is not rational, or why at the very least why the entire Bible is the worst piece of shit ever written. Even if it is the word of God, I can write something better than it.

Not so much a getting back to you as it was a note on the context of that. The entire "theory", and I will admit it is a theory, behind Paul having not known a physical Jesus existing in the human form is that when the case presents itself for him to use the life of Jesus as an example he doesn't, rather he uses the parallel that Jesus' life follows from the old testament. Read the book the Jesus Puzzle if you want to understand that quote, I don't remember what page it came from.

[alphaman]

I am not going to lay down all the evidence for why such a belief is not rational, or why at the very least why the entire Bible is the worst piece of shit ever written. Even if it is the word of God, I can write something better than it.

Yet another empty statement. You are getting angry. Why? I am only confronting the sweeping statements you are making. This thread will probably get locked, but if you want to lay out in a logical, calculated manner why such a belief doesn't make sense, then I will respond with logic as I have up until this point.... but something tells me you won't repspond in that way...

Not so much a getting back to you as it was a note on the context of that. The entire "theory", and I will admit it is a theory, behind Paul having not known a physical Jesus existing in the human form is that when the case presents itself for him to use the life of Jesus as an example he doesn't, rather he uses the parallel that Jesus' life follows from the old testament. Read the book the Jesus Puzzle if you want to understand that quote, I don't remember what page it came from.

Paul surely referenced the physical life of Jesus. You should consider the crap you read before you call the Bible a piece of crap. To say you could write something better is a ridiculous statement. If you want to make such bold statements as you have, you should probably think a bit more before you type.

As to Paul referencing Jesus' physical life...

Paul made specific claims that Jesus had a physical birth (Gal. 4:4); was an Israelite (Rom. 9:5; Gal. 3:16); was of the tribe of David (Rom. 1:3); had a brother by the name of James (Gal. 1:19); was poor (2 Cor. 8:9); ministered among the Jews (Rom. 15:8); had twelve disciples (1 Cor. 15:5); instituted a memorial supper for His disciples (1 Cor. 11:23–27); was crucified, buried, and rose again; and was seen by a great number of people after His physical resurrection (1 Cor. 1:23; 15:4–8; 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 3:1, 13).

[Psychotron]

Yet another empty statement. You are getting angry. Why? I am only confronting the sweeping statements you are making. This thread will probably get locked, but if you want to lay out in a logical, calculated manner why such a belief doesn't make sense, then I will respond with logic as I have up until this point.... but something tells me you won't repspond in that way...

No anger towards you friend, anger towards the entire belief system.

I have grown tired of writing such responses, so I am not going to. There are countless books and websites that lay out rational reasons. It's not up to me to proove your belief false, but rather up the claim maker to proove it true.

Either way, I am going to bow out of this. I don't have any such desire for an argument, and I generally try to avoid them. No one gets anywhere.