I’m not trying to get in on this debate but was reading through it all and have to ask - what would you consider as evidence?
I’m not trying to make a point of any kind, just genuinely interested in your response…
odds of evolution
- Thread starter Paparock1
- Start date
I’m not trying to get in on this debate but was reading through it all and have to ask - what would you consider as evidence?
I’m not trying to make a point of any kind, just genuinely interested in your response…
Any evidence of the supernatural would be a starting point. This evidence needs to be observable, testable, predictable, and repeatable. The moment this occurs, that specific claim of the supernatural becomes part of the observable, testable, predictable, and repeatable natural world.
If that were to happen, then we immediately need to reconcile the claims of the supernatural within the Bible with what we now have evidence for in the natural world. This process of reconciliation is true for all claims of the supernatural and all religious beliefs that contain claims of the supernatural.
Paul's claim of an interaction with a post-death Jesus on the road to Damascus is, on multiple levels, a claim of the supernatural that cannot be observed, tested, predicted, or repeated. Anyone can make this claim or a similar claim and it is usually dismissed as imaginary.
Austin O. Thank you for reading through this. I appreciate your question as well, sometimes conversations get so back that you can loose sight of the simple things, so its nice to have an outside look in and make a comment.
jjvw and I have had several conversations and I believe we both know how it will end even though we keep at it LOL.
I do believe that Hebrews 11:6 was written exactly for this very instance.
In my mind I am not sure this was a claim. His life changed 180 degrees. He went from being a terorist hunting and killing Christians to undergoing being beaten and jailed on several occasions for believing and preaching that Jesus was indeed the Son of God in the flesh. That is a lifestyle change, so to me I view that as a supernatural encounter. People just dont change like that. If it wasn't real than eventually he would find himself back hunting Christians. that is how human nature works. I am guessing you were sceptical of christianity then you in some form embrased it and studied it to not have your secptisium satisfied so you drifted back further where now you cannot believe in supernatural. Now that is human nature. You just need an encounter however I think without faith you might be blocking the encounter. Just my 2 cents that you never ask for LOL. Have a great day.
jjvw and I have had several conversations and I believe we both know how it will end even though we keep at it LOL.
I do believe that Hebrews 11:6 was written exactly for this very instance.
In my mind I am not sure this was a claim. His life changed 180 degrees. He went from being a terorist hunting and killing Christians to undergoing being beaten and jailed on several occasions for believing and preaching that Jesus was indeed the Son of God in the flesh. That is a lifestyle change, so to me I view that as a supernatural encounter. People just dont change like that. If it wasn't real than eventually he would find himself back hunting Christians. that is how human nature works. I am guessing you were sceptical of christianity then you in some form embrased it and studied it to not have your secptisium satisfied so you drifted back further where now you cannot believe in supernatural. Now that is human nature. You just need an encounter however I think without faith you might be blocking the encounter. Just my 2 cents that you never ask for LOL. Have a great day.
Maybe Saul lived with a hateful heart due to ignorance or previous trauma in his life and later felt compelled to share about the need to live with love (latching on to Jesus' form of love and wisdom as the conduit). We can dream up countless scenarios for why he flipped that don't include a ghostly experience with the supernatural.
We don't need a supernatural explanation for why a super racist white dude's outlook on all black people transforms from pure hate to love when his half black granddaughter is in his arms for the first time, or why a cat hating mountain man living in seclusion becomes best friends with a starving kitten after he nourishes to health, or why a closeted jock who used to beat gay people up for sport eventually lives his days free from self hate after falling in love with another man and being honest with himself. Transformations can happen gradually or occur in the blink of an eye. We are complicated.
Loving thy neighbor and not exploiting the weak for personal gain are virtues that help us live internally fulfilled lives. Attaching God to items like this isn't necessary, but some folks enjoy doing so or feel a need to attach a higher power in order to stay more consistent and committed to the cause.
I'm not claiming that God or an architect doesn't exist, but we know folks sometimes latch on to supernatural explanations for items that can be explained by knowledge of the natural world. My friend was recently convinced that she and her son saw aliens or something supernatural one night when looking at the sky, and that belief went away when I subtly showed her a photo of the Starlink constellation. Now, imagine trying to understand things like a blood moon or meteors followed by a famine with the common knowledge folks possessed 2000 years ago. I would have probably been worshiping ticks or sacrificing my best cattle in hopes to appease the gods.
Paul's origin story is entirely his own account. We do not know the accuracy of his portrayal before his conversion because no one else at the time seemed to care about his antics enough to record them. We do know that people frequently fabricate and exaggerate their history for the express purpose of bolstering a claim of authority. Meaning this is Paul's own propaganda to become a person of influence.
If you believe Paul's claim of a supernatural visitation, you have no reason to doubt Joseph Smith's claim of a supernatural visitation.
These are great examples but I am not sure they capture the same personal change. A man hunting and killing Christians now allows the direct opposite where he himself is being beaten, jailed, stoned to death etc... and then he goes right back in and teaches what he just punished for.
the book of Acts was written by Luke the physician.
Luke 1:3-4 I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4. so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Acts 1:1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach.
Now in Acts actually records the acts of people who were transformed by Jesus. The end of the book focuses in on Paul as he is a great example of not knowing Jesus in person but is still continuing the acts.
Now Luke was not a disciple of Jesus or knew him personally so he researched, interviewed, and got his facts straight. and reported to Theophilus who even google says:
Theophilus is the specific, honored individual to whom the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles dedicated both books. His name appears in the opening verses of Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1. [1, 2]
Scholars and historians debate his exact identity, but popular theories include: [1, 2]
- A Wealthy Patron: He is most commonly believed to be a wealthy benefactor who financed the research, writing, and publication of Luke's extensive historical accounts. [1, 2]
- A Roman Official: Luke addresses him as "most excellent Theophilus," which was a formal title given to high-ranking Roman officials or members of the societal elite. [1, 2]
- A Legal Representative: Some theorize he was the defense lawyer who represented the Apostle Paul during his trials in Rome, making these texts a form of legal defense for Christianity. [1]
Discussions about the Apostle Paul’s eyes revolve around three main events in the New Testament: his dramatic temporary blindness on the road to Damascus, the "scales" that fell from his eyes, and his ongoing "thorn in the flesh," which many scholars speculate was a chronic eye condition. [1, 2, 3]
Specific details regarding Paul's eyesight and his visual experiences include:
- The Blindness on the Road to Damascus: In the Bible Book of Acts, Paul (then Saul) was blinded by a radiant, heavenly light. This blindness lasted for three days. [1, 2]
- The "Scales": When Ananias laid hands on Paul to pray for him, "something like scales" fell from Paul's eyes, and his sight was immediately restored. [1, 2]
- The "Thorn in the Flesh": In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul mentions a "thorn in his flesh" that God did not remove. Many biblical scholars and traditions suggest this was a severe, chronic eye disease or injury. [1, 2, 3]
- Galatians Clues: In Galatians 4, Paul notes that the Galatians would have "plucked out your own eyes and given them to me" if it were possible. Later, in Galatians 6:11, Paul writes, "See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand," leading many experts to conclude his eyesight was so poor that he had to write in oversized lettering. [1, 2, 3]
- Historical Description: While the Bible contains no description of his eye color, the non-canonical Acts of Paul (an ancient early Christian text) describes him physically as having large eyes and meeting eyebrows
If you are still reading this far, I have to ask you what other book in the entire world compairs to the bible?
I made this a seperate post as I dont doubt joseph smith or even muhammad's discription of an encounter. satan/evil mimicks God. he is not a creator so he only copies what he has seen God/Jesus do.
These encounters come after Paul's written encounter. We see examples all over the world that satan wants to be like God and have his throne greater than God's throne. I will take what we see today. The LGBTQ pride flag symbol. Its the colors of the rainbow, why these colors? Well this is from google:
In Ezekiel 1, the prophet describes God's throne as a mobile, heavenly chariot descending in a fierce storm. Above four winged creatures and a crystal expanse, he sees a sapphire-like throne. Seated on it is a glowing, human-like figure surrounded by a radiant rainbow. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Details of the Throne
- The Appearance of the Throne: The throne itself resembles brilliant blue sapphire (or lapis lazuli). It sits above a shimmering, crystal-like expanse (or firmament). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- The Figure on the Throne: Upon the throne sits a figure "like the appearance of a man". From the waist up, He glows like hot amber and fire; from the waist down, He is surrounded by intense fire and brightness. [1, 2]
- The Surroundings: The entire throne is encircled by a glowing brightness that looks like a rainbow in the clouds.
Again satan is a copy cat and wants what God has. He cannot create his own rainbow but he can convince others to claim it for their own symbol.
You are making a claim without evidence that supernatural encounters exist. Then you are labeling the supernatural encounters you don't like as deceptive encounters.
I am saying the supernatural does exits and has truth/good and deception/evil
I dont like deception as it is evil.
evil is a mockery of truth and deception steals and twist truth. again it all steams from the father of lies, who only wants his own pride exhaulted through being worshiped and he doesnt care what it takes to get it. he was and is created just like the rest of us, but he is so self obsorbed that he masquerade behind all revolt only to enlarge his own kingdom. The only reason he has a kingdom is because he was the first and the first of anything naturally becomes the father. Notice most things evil always revolve around what the one thing or person wants at the expense of everything or everyone else.
Truth on the other hand promotes and builds unity.
Are you denying there is good and evil?
I dont like deception as it is evil.
evil is a mockery of truth and deception steals and twist truth. again it all steams from the father of lies, who only wants his own pride exhaulted through being worshiped and he doesnt care what it takes to get it. he was and is created just like the rest of us, but he is so self obsorbed that he masquerade behind all revolt only to enlarge his own kingdom. The only reason he has a kingdom is because he was the first and the first of anything naturally becomes the father. Notice most things evil always revolve around what the one thing or person wants at the expense of everything or everyone else.
Truth on the other hand promotes and builds unity.
Are you denying there is good and evil?
Here is a disinterested academic take on who wrote Acts.
The Acts of the Apostles: Who Wrote It, When, and Why? - The Bart Ehrman Blog
https://ehrmanblog.org/the-acts-of-the-apostles-who-wrote-it-when-and-why/
Google:
The Book of Acts was written by Luke, the same author who wrote the Gospel of Luke. Both books are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, and Acts is widely regarded by scholars and church tradition as a direct historical sequel to Luke's Gospel. [1, 2, 3, 4]
While the text itself is technically anonymous, historical evidence and biblical research point to Luke as the author: [1, 2, 3, 4]
The Book of Acts was written by Luke, the same author who wrote the Gospel of Luke. Both books are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, and Acts is widely regarded by scholars and church tradition as a direct historical sequel to Luke's Gospel. [1, 2, 3, 4]
While the text itself is technically anonymous, historical evidence and biblical research point to Luke as the author: [1, 2, 3, 4]
- The "We" Sections: In certain parts of Acts, the narrative shifts from third-person ("he/they") to first-person plural ("we"), implying the author was a traveling companion and eyewitness to many of the events involving the Apostle Paul. [1, 2]
- Early Church Tradition: Early Christian leaders and historians, including Irenaeus and Eusebius, consistently attributed both the Gospel of Luke and Acts to Luke the Evangelist, a physician and close associate of Paul. [1, 2, 3]
I read the same thing. You left out the part that acknowledges the uncertainty of who the author of Acts is.
But it does not matter. The Book of Acts is not evidence of the supernatural. It only makes claims of the supernatural. A handful of guys claim to be receiving messages from a supernatural source. Just like Joseph Smith. Just like the crazy guy mumbling in the back alley, but he lacks charisma and persuasion.
your right that was actually a copy and paste mistake on my part. I was not trying to be deceptive LOL.
and as always I cannot give you tangable proof that you would convince you
and as always I cannot give you tangable proof that you would convince you
Sigh...
Here we go again. Paparock cannot prove anything (nobody can, including me) yet his arguments revolve around a certain BOOK as if its some sort of proof. Its not as it is simply a book like any other. I'm not saying its without value, but I'm also saying that its not infallible or the only one out there. Most Christians - hell - most monotheists don't worship their God, they worship a BOOK. Said book was also tampered with and configured for purely political reasons - do some research into why the Nicene creed became the "One True Way (tm)". Alternate views were suppressed as "heresy" (which concept is itself a BLACK evil) and their followers were killed which is what monotheists do to anyone who doesn't follow their EXACT teaching.
I remember a conversation I had with a friend who was a preacher's son back in high school. We were discussing the basis of our respective belief systems. I told him mine was based in knowledge of spiritual forces. He - rather self-righteously - said HIS were based on "The Gospel". *FACE PALM* What did he think the Gospels were about? Spiritual forces! But like many, he was so blinded by bibliolatry that he couldn't understand the distinction. He's now the pastor at his late father's church - I should look him up and have a yak with him...
As for Paul, much of what I find abhorrent about Christianity comes from Paul - or at least Paul as his writings are presented to us. I think his writings were very likely tampered with as I find him to be quite hateful at times. Paul was a high initiate before the (supposed) encounter on the road to Damascus, I'd think he'd know better.
Enough of my rambling - it probably doesn't even make much sense!
Here we go again. Paparock cannot prove anything (nobody can, including me) yet his arguments revolve around a certain BOOK as if its some sort of proof. Its not as it is simply a book like any other. I'm not saying its without value, but I'm also saying that its not infallible or the only one out there. Most Christians - hell - most monotheists don't worship their God, they worship a BOOK. Said book was also tampered with and configured for purely political reasons - do some research into why the Nicene creed became the "One True Way (tm)". Alternate views were suppressed as "heresy" (which concept is itself a BLACK evil) and their followers were killed which is what monotheists do to anyone who doesn't follow their EXACT teaching.
I remember a conversation I had with a friend who was a preacher's son back in high school. We were discussing the basis of our respective belief systems. I told him mine was based in knowledge of spiritual forces. He - rather self-righteously - said HIS were based on "The Gospel". *FACE PALM* What did he think the Gospels were about? Spiritual forces! But like many, he was so blinded by bibliolatry that he couldn't understand the distinction. He's now the pastor at his late father's church - I should look him up and have a yak with him...
As for Paul, much of what I find abhorrent about Christianity comes from Paul - or at least Paul as his writings are presented to us. I think his writings were very likely tampered with as I find him to be quite hateful at times. Paul was a high initiate before the (supposed) encounter on the road to Damascus, I'd think he'd know better.
Enough of my rambling - it probably doesn't even make much sense!
No argument here, BUT because I just can't help myself, what is it about Christians and the word "mock"? Its about half obsolete, but this demographic is singlehandedly keeping it alive!~!
This is at least honest - good on you. I can only say that each person's experience, and each person's journey is their own and cannot be compared to the experiences of others or with any BOOK.
In the Bible, mockery is consistently condemned as a sin of pride and foolishness. Scripture warns that scoffers bring strife and suffering upon themselves, and advises believers to avoid engaging with habitual mockers. However, the Bible also highlights instances of righteous irony and divine judgment against the wicked. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The Nature and Consequences of Mockery
The wisdom literature—particularly the book of Proverbs—offers a clear view of mockery: [1, 2, 3]
- The "Mocker" as a Fool: Proverbs describes a "mocker" (or scoffer) as a hardened, arrogant fool who despises wisdom and rejects correction. [1]
- Destructive Results: Mockery leads to conflict and personal suffering. Proverbs 22:10 notes that driving out a mocker ends quarrels and insults. [1, 2]
- Judgment on the Proud: Proverbs 3:34 states that God "mocks the proud mockers, but gives grace to the humble
why do words become obsolete?
the english language is the most vague. word meaning is lost. My favoriate word to give this example is the word love. I believe the english language was invented to disotort and hide the true meaning of specifically the Bible. Some of you call it a book but it is again, a testament, A legal document. and no matter who tries to hide it, burn it, or nulify it. We still have it. It is the most reconized book in the world because it is the legal document! There is no worship there but there is the utmost value placed in the constitution for what it is. thus the saying, it is what it is
Do Christians ever consult a thesaurus? There are plenty of other ways to say the same thing, but its ALWAYS "mock". The 19th century called, they want their semi-obsolete word back. It literally sets my teeth on edge, the only one worse to my mind is "jab" - which makes me want to just shoot myself.
I mock mock, and I mock mocks, which means I mock mock mocks!
So if the Bible is a legal "testament" (another quasi-obsolete word for that matter), that explains much. That would be the source of dogma - and legalism - both of which I utterly reject. My karma ran over your dogma...
interesting:
The English word dogma entered the language around the turn of the 17th century (c. 1600). It evolved from the Latin dogma (philosophical tenet), which was borrowed from the ancient Greek word δόγμα (dogma). [1, 2, 3]
The meaning of the word has shifted over the centuries:
- Ancient Greece: The literal meaning was "that which one thinks is true" or "that which seems good". It broadly referred to a belief, opinion, or popular decree. [1, 2, 3]
- First Century: In early texts (including the Bible), it was often used to mean "decree," "edict," or an official ordinance (like a decree issued by Caesar Augustus). [1, 2]
- Church Fathers & Modern Usage: Over time, the definition narrowed to mean a firmly established, indisputable core principle, specifically used to define authoritative religious or philosophical doctrines that are expected to be accepted without doub.
to live free in the USA you have to follow laws correct? I cannot freely walk into your house and open your refrigerator and grab a drink without your permission. No, so does that negate my freedom? no, it makes and keeps me respectful and orderly. Even nature itself has what we call the laws of nature or principles. Laws keep order and truth.
Similar threads
