Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's certainly comes as no surprise that you would like me to accept your presumptions/assumptions and just move forward.
Presumptions? Assumptions? Au contraire old fruit!! I'm quoting verbatim your very own Bible. I haven’t twisted or changed a word of it. I’m showing you what your Bible says word for word. It’s actually YOU that keeps wanting to twist and change it with large doses of 'interpretation', 'symbolism', 'metaphor' and 'poetry'.... because you've been trained to always look for a way to massage the Bible into saying what you prefer to believe it says. You're just picking out pieces of it, ignoring what you don't like, and reassembling the rest in a manner suited to how you want it to be. But don't fool yourself for a moment; what you're presenting is decidedly contrary to what the Bible says.
Unless you can show that the verses I have provided are not accurate quotations, then you just need to admit that your claims are not consistent with the Bible and that you're shaping everything to meet your desires rather than what the Bible ACTUALLY says.
Do you see anything about the Damascus Road conversion story in what you quoted?
I don't think any readers do either.
That was Luke's claim, never Paul's.
Paul claimed to have had a series of visions or revelations (or hallucinations?) from which he obtained his knowledge of Jesus.
Paul said He saw the Lord in person in His epistle to the Corinthians just like he was seen by Cephas, the twelve, then by over 500 and then by Paul. Read it again:
(3) For I give over to you among the first what also I accepted, that
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, (4) and that He was
entombed, and that He has been roused the third day according to the
scriptures, (5) and that He was seen by Cephas, thereupon by the
twelve." (6) Thereupon He was seen by over five hundred brethren at
once, of whom the majority are remaining hitherto, yet some were put to
repose also." (7) Thereupon He was seen by James, thereafter by all the
apostles." (8) Yet, last of all, even as if a premature birth, He was seen by me also."
The above details those seeing Jesus AFTER He rose from the dead. So Paul saw Jesus after He rose from the dead on the road to Damascus.
You are really desparate, a.w.
Just admit you are once again wrong. I realize you can't do that since you don't live in reality. But, hey, I can hope some day you'll come out of the rabbit hole you've fallen into.
Hmmmm.... Here, Rafi; let me help you put up. (BTW, for the biblically uninitiated, Paul was named Saul prior to his conversion, poor lad.)
Uncharacteristically (I dislike bad fiction...), I dug up my teen-age companion bible, found Acts 9:3-5 as directed and read on. Apparently Eusibius didn't want to read beyond this a line or two {Acts 9:3-7 and further} when he denounced Rafius' clearly more accurate read of the bible. Let's read together, shall we?:
"And the men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man.
And Saul arose from the earth, and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man, but they led him by the hand and took him into Damascus"
Oh brother! Talk about puerile!
He saw no man including those who were with him on the road AFTER He saw the Lord because the Lord's glory was above the brilliance of the noon day sun and Paul was blinded by the light of Jesus. They heard Jesus' voice but due to Jesus' glory being so brilliant they couldn't see His actual form of a human. Paul saw the Lord, they didn't. He was blinded, they weren't because they didn't look at the brilliant glory as Paul did.
Quote:
{Which is where the godly Jesus spirit voice, not a physical person, told him to go in acts 9-5: And he said [since he obviously couldn't see any people standing around, as Eusibius so righteously claims, later proven in Acts: 9-7]
"Who art thou, Lord?" And the Lord said "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest". Etc. etc. So... was Jesus physically there as you claim? Not on your sweet pippy, Eusibius. Only in your errant imagination, frankly.
Well, yes, Jesus was their physically. His glory blinded Paul. A vision doesn't blind anyone.
Quote:
But now, with my interest piqued in the inerrant biblical version, I read on, finding Acts: 9-10, with this further evidence that Jesus was speaking to folks in spirit only, not in person (PS I know you can read for yourself, but apparently you don't want to be cornered by Rafi. So I'll do it for you and everyone else here who's reading along in amusement. You're welcome, BTW!):
"And there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias, and to him said the Lord in a vision, etc. etc.
I'm glad you believe Jesus spoke to Ananias in a vision. That's a start that you are beginning to believe the Bible. Now if you can just believe the rest.
He appeared to Ananias in a vision. If He appeared to Ananias the exact same way He appeared to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus it would not have been said he only saw Him in a vision. Vision's don't cause blindness. Paul saw the glory of the Lord above the brightness of the noon day sun. He was blinded by that. Ananias was not blinded because he only saw the Lord in a vision. Of course the risen Jesus truly did speak to Ananias. It was true. it did happen. He did meet Saul/Paul as the Lord told him.
Then, in Acts: 9-12, the vision thing continues unabated (in 9-12, Jesus tells Ananias to go to Straight Street, to the house of Judas, and seek one named Saul....
Quote:
"And (Saul) hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias, and putting his hand on him (Saul), that he might receive his sight."
Quote:
And so on ,and so forth.So, the bible is absolutely historically correct, inerrant and to be literally believed, huh? Some "evidence", Eusibius! Yuppers; convincing as all get-out!
Yes, later, after Saul personally saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, later he had a vision of Ananias. Had Paul just seen Jesus in a vision it would have been said he saw the Lord in a vision. Since he actually, literally saw Jesus on the road it was not said to be a vision. I realize rifleman doesn't have the IQ to note the difference between a vision and what someone actually saw. That's why I'm here to help you poor undereducated folks. Hey, it's a hard job but someone has to do it. I hope to eventually get you folks up to where you should be so you no longer need me to point these things out to you.
I wonder why rifleman didn't quote this:
Act 9:17 Now Ananias came away and entered the house, and placing his
hands on him, he said, "Saul! Brother! The Lord has commissioned me (Jesus, Who was seen by you on the road by which you came), so that
you should be receiving sight and be filled with holy spirit."
Quote:
Rafius, it's time to go get a beer and have a god laugh!!
Quote:
(Oh, sorry; an honest typo: I meant a good laugh. My bad.)
Biblical inerrancy and historical accuracy? Who we kidding here?
Yea, drown your ignorance in beer and have a good laugh. Keep drinking tilll you are stinking drunk to help you not face up to your problems in not being able to deal with reality.
Here's a dose of reality:
Paul saw the risen Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. He was blinded by His glory. Ananias had a vision of Christ speaking to him about Saul/Paul. He was not blinded. Saul/Paul had a vision of Ananias.
Whenever someone personally saw the Lord with their own eyes it was not called a vision. If they had just a vision it was called a vision. Try to learn the difference. I don't want to keep repeating myself to make a point. usually with drunks I have to repeat myself over and over and it gets tiring.
Paul said He saw the Lord in person in His epistle to the Corinthians just like he was seen by Cephas, the twelve, then by over 500 and then by Paul. Read it again:
(3) For I give over to you among the first what also I accepted, that
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, (4) and that He was
entombed, and that He has been roused the third day according to the
scriptures, (5) and that He was seen by Cephas, thereupon by the
twelve." (6) Thereupon He was seen by over five hundred brethren at
once, of whom the majority are remaining hitherto, yet some were put to
repose also." (7) Thereupon He was seen by James, thereafter by all the
apostles." (8) Yet, last of all, even as if a premature birth, He was seen by me also."
The above details those seeing Jesus AFTER He rose from the dead. So Paul saw Jesus after He rose from the dead on the road to Damascus.
You are really desparate, a.w.
Just admit you are once again wrong. I realize you can't do that since you don't live in reality. But, hey, I can hope some day you'll come out of the rabbit hole you've fallen into.
RESPONSE:
One last time. There is nothing in the above passage about Paul's Damascus Road experience.
Paul only saw Jesus in "revelations" or "visions." Paul converted about three years after the Ascension. If you state otherwise, please quote the scripture showing WHERE and WHEN Paul met Jesus.
Let's look at what you quoted:
Thereupon He was seen by James, thereafter by all the apostles." (8) Yet, last of all, even as if a premature birth, He was seen
Was James and "all of the apostles" on the Road to Damascus with Paul? Of course not.
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
—Acts 9:7, King James Version (KJV)
The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.
—Acts 9:7, New American Bible (NAB)
The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
—Acts 9:7, New International Version (NIV)
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
—Acts 22:9, King James Version (KJV)
My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.
—Acts 22:9, New American Bible (NAB)
So, why is it that some people still think the bible is 100% fact? Most Christians think that the bible is a great historical reference, when in fact it is a terrible one.
Take Noah's flood? If the flood did happen when the bible said it did, explain Egypt? How was Egypt untouched?
There are so many things in the bible that the bible scholars still feel are accurate, but historical evidence proves otherwise.
The bible is not 100% facts, its just not. I believe its more like 85% fact, if we must use percentages. But it defintely is historical according to the historians Tertullian, Josephus, Suetonious, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Celsus, Lucian, Sextus Julius Africanus, Tacitus, Origen and the Talmud.
But it defintely is historical according to the historians Tertullian, Josephus, Suetonious, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Celsus, Lucian, Sextus Julius Africanus, Tacitus, Origen and the Talmud.
Peace.
Oh!! So you believe this.........
"It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favour, they hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a)
You also believe that Jesus.....learnt black magic in Egypt,
was a bastard son of Roman soldier, was conceived during menstruation, burnt his food and had 5 disciples?? ........Interesting!!
"It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a)
you also believe that Jesus.....learnt black magic in Egypt,
was a bastard son of Roman soldier, was conceived during menstruation, burnt his food and had 5 disciples........interesting!!
I believe no such thing, have never stated or wrote those things, your accusation and inferance is simply your own, not mine. The fact remains that the bible is historical, and many historians recorded it in history. Archaeology is stunning proof of the bible being historical, We have the actual bones of the high priest Caiaphas, who slapped Christ in the face during an interogation. We have the actual bones of Simon of Cyrene, who carried Christ cross to golgotha to be killed. We have the site of Golgotha itself. We have the historical River Jordan, where Christ was baptised. We have his friends, Martha and Marys actual house they lived in, which Christ no doubt at times slept and ate in.
We have the actual biblical citys of Ephesus, Athens and Jerusalem. We have found the tomb of Joesph and Lazarus, famous biblical characthers. We have the " Via Dolorosa", part of the actual pavement where Christ stood before Pilate, a stunning find! We have the Damasucs Gate and the Garden of Gethsemane. We also have the hanging Gardens of Babylonia.
The list of the historical proof of the bible is endless.
Paul said He saw the Lord in person in His epistle to the Corinthians just like he was seen by Cephas, the twelve, then by over 500 and then by Paul. Read it again:
(3) For I give over to you among the first what also I accepted, that
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, (4) and that He was
entombed, and that He has been roused the third day according to the
scriptures, (5) and that He was seen by Cephas, thereupon by the
twelve." (6) Thereupon He was seen by over five hundred brethren at
once, of whom the majority are remaining hitherto, yet some were put to
repose also." (7) Thereupon He was seen by James, thereafter by all the
apostles." (8) Yet, last of all, even as if a premature birth, He was seen by me also."
The above details those seeing Jesus AFTER He rose from the dead. So Paul saw Jesus after He rose from the dead on the road to Damascus.
You are really desparate, a.w.
Just admit you are once again wrong. I realize you can't do that since you don't live in reality. But, hey, I can hope some day you'll come out of the rabbit hole you've fallen into.
RESPONSE:
We are examining the fact or fiction of Paul's Damacus Road conversion which you introduced.
Paul makes no such claim.
You have failed to produce a Paulineepistle referring to it.
And Eusibius, as I predicted, also did not begin to address my later more post about the general unbelievability of the bible's various contradictory or impossible stories. I understand the process. It's literalists I feel sorry for; I am going about my life completely happy and fulfilled, not terrified that I didn't dot some "i" or cross some "t" in my life to make the imaginary Lord God unhappy.
But.. if He really "is', and does in fact meet me at those Pearly Gates (another ripe one; just imagine: Pearly Gates hanging on a cloud-bank.), Then of course I'll note that of He obviously made me the skeptic I am, and for a purpose, and that he intended for me to go to heaven all along, and just placed me here on Earth and on C-D to test the faith of the various less-inquisitive parishioners, and so, "come on down and we'll have a good cold beer together!" ...sayeth the good-natured Lord.
So please; do have fun with those various detailed delusions. Hey; I read what I read in the bible, and found out exactly what I needed to see, that you'd forgotten to add in, since indeed you were mis-quoting or selectively providing stuff thinking you'd not get caught. FAIL.
Biblical literacy and historical accuracy be hanged. It's certainly not how much of anything happened, when we look carefully. You didn't answer my thoughts about all the deceased people who nonetheless magically swore they saw Jesus feeding all those lucky starving individuals. Impossible, obviously, so there was no comment from you on a logical level.
now, I'm sure you'll have a quick but scientifically invalid retort, but a retort nonetheless. And of course, I don't get drunk. I have too much to attend to and learn; a personal continuing education crusade, something quite foreign to most devout but intransigent Christian followers.
Enjoy your limited life! Salud!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
