- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 May 21
1 edit
@FMF
So you're saying what I just said.
In the future could you please look carefully if I used the word "proof".
I think you assume that my saying "Here's evidence" is my insisting "Here's proof."
In the future please notice if I use the word "proof" or not.
27 May 21
@sonship saidGosh, sonship. What are you on about now?
@FMF
So you're saying what I just said.
In the future could you please look carefully if I used the word "proof".
I think you assume that my saying "Here's evidence" is my insisting "Here's proof."
In the future please notice if I use the word "proof" or not.
You said "That is not proof what they believed was true."
And I said: "That is right, it is not proof what they believed was true."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 May 21
3 edits
@fmf saidPaul says he met Jesus and it was a supernatural encounter.
Paul never met Jesus.
So you dismiss him meeting Jesus as a supernatural event. OK.
You dismiss his testimony as delusion or lie or something else.
Your alternative theory as to why a energetic up and coming young brilliant rabbi made a 180 degree turn from enemy of the church to its chief proponent.
All I ask for is your alternative opinion on what changed him.
"Plenty of people change" ?
HIs traveling companion Luke says this young guy took the initiative to go to the religious authorities to request papers to round up the new cult members. He himself says he persecuted the church. Something turned him around to be willing to suffer tremendously instead for the cause he was dedicated to wiping out.
Nero beheaded him.
If its "ANYTHING but seeing Jesus" then submit your best theory as to what happened to him. I hope "Lots of guys change" is not the only thing you have.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 May 21
2 edits
His instructions, I'd say. And the opportunity to write his own account of what he supposedly did.
I don't know what this means.
Paul's own instructions changed him and the opportunity to do what he did
anyway?? What changed Paul was his own instructions and the opportunity to write what he wrote changed him??
This doesn't make much sense to me. Somebody ELSE beside FMF explain what this is suppose to mean if you understand it.
FMF don't bother clarifying it. I think you're playing with me.
And if it is so concise and so obviously apparently clear, I should be able to figure it out. Or somebody else to whom it is so obvious can clue me. If it was SO obviously elementary as you express it then I'd like somebody else to explain what the meaning of those words are.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 May 21
5 edits
Gosh, sonship. What are you on about now?
You said "That is not proof what they believed was true."
And I said: "That is right, it is not proof what they believed was true."
Sorry FMF. I am not confused about this "Gosh sonship ...".
What I said, you came along and said also in agreement.
And I do not use the word "proof" as often as you reply to me that something I wrote is not proof.
But I am going to use the word "proof" or "prove" concerning for your anti-supernatural bias.
How would you prove that a supernatural event is impossible to occur?
27 May 21
@sonship saidLike anyone talking about supernatural things, whether it be you or me, we can engage in speculation and conjecture and make subjective assertions. There is no onus of any kind to "prove to the world that a supernatural event is impossible to occur" and I can't imagine ever wanting to, needing to, or trying to.
FMF, how would you prove to the world that a supernatural event is impossible to occur?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 May 21
7 edits
@fmf saidThis is a very convenient answer.
Like anyone talking about supernatural things, whether it be you or me, we can engage in speculation and conjecture and make subjective assertions. There is no onus of any kind to "prove to the world that a supernatural event is impossible to occur" and I can't imagine ever wanting to, needing to, or trying to.
On one hand you posture like it is SO terribly obvious that the man Jesus could not have been raised by God from the dead, but no onus is upon you to argue why.
Now, I ask the reasonable. If it is so obvious Christ's resurrection could NOT happen what is your proof that obviously this impossible thing could not happen.
And your response. Well, its speculative conjecture way too subjective and you could not even imagine WHY you would EVER want to make such an assertion.
Very convenient FMF.
Very convenient and meanwhile - on with the show.
"OF COURSE no event like God raising Jesus from the dead could occur. I mean, duh!!" [no quote]
But with your few glib dismissals posturing that of course no supernatural rising from the dead occurred, SOME onus is on you to explain what makes that impossible.
"Don't need to. Why would I ever want to?" [paraphrase] is pretty weak.
I see it as a continuation of pop atheism's posture - ALL burden is on believers in Christ and NO burden is on those who lack belief in the resurrection which is the only normal default position.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 May 21
1 edit
There is no onus of any kind to "prove to the world that a supernatural event is impossible to occur" and I can't imagine ever wanting to, needing to, or trying to.
Then it is pure special pleading that the supernatural just doesn't happen. Consequently its pointless to entertain for a moment the New Testament could be conveying the truth.
This is "I know that I know it didn't happen." [paraphrase] And apathy is the answer to why you know.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 May 21
Somebody else with something besides argument by yawning.
A notable supernatural event could not occur because ______________?
Why isn't such an attitude the direct opposite of superstition that miracles occur everyday all the time supernaturally? Why is this not just the opposite extreme to rampant superstition?