Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Do You Believe the Earth is 6000 Years Old?

Judaizers back then despised Paul, just like Judaizers of today…such as yourself…despise him, because he (like Jesus) clearly taught the incompatibility of the Law of Moses with Jesus’ New Covenant. The Judaizers…then and now…are the only one’s who despise Paul. Except for those…then and now…who despise ALL followers of Jesus.

Just a minute, that doesn't comport with what happened. The early church in Jerusalem and the church at Ephesus and all the other known Christian churches that Paul himself referred to as being against him despised the "followers of Jesus"?

When Paul was rescued and put on a ship for Europe he didn't have an adherent among the Followers of Jesus. At the very least there were none recorded.

He was suspected by the Jerusalem church founded by Jesus' publicly chosen apostles of being an enemy agent. Was he not?

When Paul was hauled off to Rome did he have any supporters in the Christian church? Other than Timothy?

If I had been Timothy I believe I would have been a bit askance at Paul wanting to cut on my pecker. What was that all about?

The very first thing the self proclaimed atheists always do, is ridicule and paint those who speak up with "hate" "anti-semite" "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" "transphobe" etc & etc .. and they keep making up and weaponizing new -ist & -phobe words at their convenience

all designed to shut you up

your kryptonite doesn't work on everyone

Proof!!!

The only Christians that despised Paul were Judaizers, such as yourself. There were then, as there are now, other folks who despise Christianity itself and ALL followers of Jesus.It’s crystal clear that Paul had good relations with those who were apostles before him, like Peter, John, and Jesus’ own brother James, who was to become the leader of the church in Jerusalem. When one reads the book of Acts it is clear that there is no ambiguity whatsoever about how Paul relates to these people. In the book of Acts, Paul’s entire mission to the Gentiles is endorsed with a unified voice by the Jerusalem apostles.See what I wrote above. Even world renowned Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman clearly affirms and concurs with what I wrote above.The big issue facing the early church involved the relationship of the Jewish Messiah to the non-Jewish peoples (Gentiles). For someone to be a follower of Jesus, the Judaizers insisted that one had to become circumcised and begin to follow the Law of Moses. The apostle Paul, both in his own letters and in Luke’s book of Acts, insisted that they absolutely did not have to do those things, as did Jesus Himself. And as did the apostle Peter, and as did James, Jesus’ own brother and the leader of the Jerusalem church. The salvation brought by the Jewish Messiah is for all people, not just for the Jews, and one does not have to become a Jew or follow the Mosaic Law in order to share in that salvation.

Luke’s book of Acts makes it completely clear that everyone…including the Jerusalem apostles…was completely on board with this view.

You're the one who began a rant about:

Pedophilia
Homosexuality
Bisexuality
Crossdressing
and it was a Christian who said:


That's what happens when you respond with your emotions, not your logic. You make unforced errors.

Now stop and think for a moment how that can be harnessed by nefarious foreign actors.

Now think about how those same actors can harness "Orange man bad" against you.

Repeating a fallacy won't make it true. Evidence is something that anyone can access and evaluate. Faith is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence, just as Hebrews 11:1 defines it.

We have nothing from Jesus himself, only what others wrote about him decades after.

LOL...

OK

6000 years? This sounds like Trump math. No wait, that would be 6,000,000,000 years.

Before there was ever a New Testament there were already Christians. They saw the risen Jesus themselves and then later they wrote it down. You can become a Christian without even knowing what the Bible says. As long as you know that Jesus rose from the dead, and as long as you know that He died for your sins, it’s very easy to become a Christian.

Paul says all you need to do is confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus rose from the dead, and you will be saved. Period. So before the Bible ever even existed, Christianity was already true. Now it is true that the New Testament helps us understand what Christianity is all about, and because we have the New Testament we can order our lives according to it.

But my point is, even if you find what you consider to be an error in the New Testament, that doesn’t negate the truth of Christianity. There are other ways of verifying that Jesus rose from the dead besides words written on a page. The explosion of the early church out of Jerusalem is an example. That wouldn’t have happened unless something extraordinary had happened. Especially in a group that had nothing to gain by saying Jesus rose from the dead. And they went on and got beaten, tortured, and killed for saying it.

It could’ve been easily refuted if the Jews and the Romans had simply gone to the tomb and pulled out the dead body of Jesus. Christianity would’ve been over. But they didn’t ~ because they couldn’t. But it persisted and turned the world around in its first nearly 300 years, through peaceful means.

There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.

''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.

The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.

This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.

https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-account-of-resurrection-discrepancies/

But explain where the body of Jesus went.

We'll wait.......

If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.

Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.

''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.

No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.

No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.

Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.

Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.

Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)

Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.

The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''


https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/

One witness said there were two bank robbers.

Another said there were four......

Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened.

You are an idiot.

A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot......

You're still missing three zero's.

It was trillion years. 6 trillion beautiful years. They were the best 6 trillion years you've ever seen...

You're presuming there was a body.

You're presuming there was a Jesus.

Oh, ok, back to you.

Prove there wasn't a Jesus, prove there wasn't a body.......

Go take a high school logic class, then you might be worth debating.