Is Paul "the False Prophet?"

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#479 Nov 24, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Don't be so hard on yourself. There must be a spark of intelligence in there somewhere.
.
Actually more like an ember from a burned out match...

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#480 Nov 29, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Look the idiot is so stupid that he has to argue about typos!
.
<quoted text>
.
You're wrong! It is not a big book, it is a volume of books.
.
<quoted text>
.
Are you accusing me of saying this? Let me quote the exact words from the Jewish Encyclopedia. The parenthetical references indicate where the reference is found in the Talmud. There are at least two sites where the Talmud can be read, "come and hear" and "sacred texts."
.
"Simon ben Yo&#7717;ai is preeminently the anti-Gentile teacher. In a collection of three sayings of his, beginning with the keyword (Yer. &#7730;id. 66c; Massek. Soferim xv. 10; Mek., Beshal-la&#7717;, 27a; Tan., Wayera, ed. Buber, 20), is found the expression, often quoted by anti-Semites, "&#7788;ob shebe-goyyim harog" (="The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed").
.
the Rabbis declaring that in case of rape by a Gentile the issue should not be allowed to affect a Jewish woman's relation to her husband. "The Torah outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast" (Mi&#7731;. viii. 4, referring to Ezek. l.c.)
.
Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, "the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii. 4). R. Johanan says of one so teaching: "Such a person deserves death" (an idiom used to express indignation).
.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/65...
I am sorry, but, I can not understand what you have Posted.

Perhaps if you posted you own words.

I cut and paste on occasion, but I Know what I am cutting and pasting.

I am not able to understand what you have posted.

So my Question still stands.
What Book tells me I can kill them because they are Gentiles?

I would LIKE TO READ THAT BOOK.

That is all I asked you, what is the Name of the BOOK.
That Is ALL I asked of you.

What book can I read, that says kill them all because they they are gentiles?

All I am doing is asking for the Name of the Book, you are "QUOTING" these things from, chapter and verse would be nice,
But lets keep it Simple,
WHAT
BOOK
Do
YOU
SAY
SAYS
I can kill GENTILES?

I like that IDEA,

WHAT BOOK,
SAYS, I can do it?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#481 Nov 29, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Look the idiot is so stupid that he has to argue about typos!
.
<quoted text>
.
You're wrong! It is not a big book, it is a volume of books.
.
<quoted text>
.
Are you accusing me of saying this? Let me quote the exact words from the Jewish Encyclopedia. The parenthetical references indicate where the reference is found in the Talmud. There are at least two sites where the Talmud can be read, "come and hear" and "sacred texts."
.
"Simon ben Yo&#7717;ai is preeminently the anti-Gentile teacher. In a collection of three sayings of his, beginning with the keyword (Yer. &#7730;id. 66c; Massek. Soferim xv. 10; Mek., Beshal-la&#7717;, 27a; Tan., Wayera, ed. Buber, 20), is found the expression, often quoted by anti-Semites, "&#7788;ob shebe-goyyim harog" (="The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed").
.
the Rabbis declaring that in case of rape by a Gentile the issue should not be allowed to affect a Jewish woman's relation to her husband. "The Torah outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast" (Mi&#7731;. viii. 4, referring to Ezek. l.c.)
.
Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, "the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii. 4). R. Johanan says of one so teaching: "Such a person deserves death" (an idiom used to express indignation).
.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/65...
OK, I will go read one, I have a good Library System, I will go read it.

It would help if you just point to the part that says KILL THEM ALL, and then I could read that part.

I will go read it, "The Talmud"

I read all five books of "The game of Thrones" in about 7 weeks.
Had to buy the last one in Hard back.

I will go read this "The Talmud" and you say it says Kill all Gentiles, Correct?

It will take me a bit to read it, but I will will read it.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#482 Nov 29, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Yes I was talking abut the Talmud which is referenced in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
.
Your scripture quotations, while accurate, are not relevant to the point I was making.
.
It does not matter what the Jews thought about Jesus or Christians then or now, that does not change how they interpreted their Hebrew scriptures. And that is what I was talking about. It will take more than saying "They killed Jesus" to prove they interpreted the scriptures wrong.
.
<quoted text>
.
Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
.*.*.*.
Rom 11:26-27
(26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
(27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
.
<quoted text>
.
See Romans Chapter 11.
Yeah, Quoting Paul is a Topix that asked is Paul the false prophet,
Is about the standard, of people that would post upon this topic.

Paul Prove Paul,
Paul Said HE MET THE RESURRECTED JESUS,
Which struck his People Blind but they COULD HEAR, But they were Struck Deaf BUT THEY COULD SEE.

Compare the 2.
They were blind but could hear
They were deaf but they could see.

LOOK AT WHAT PAUL SAYS.

There are 3.
One they are Blind but they could hear
The other they are Deaf but they could see.

There is a Third, which does not agree with EITHER of the above.

READ THE BIBLE.

When you get to a point were Paul is PROVING his "I SAW GOD"
Mark that and COMPARE the three stories Paul himself gives of his transformation, The DAY he(Paul) Met Jesus, because not one of his accounts agree with another.

Paul tells the story, 3, THREE times in the New Testament, and not one of the stories Agrees with another of the stories.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#483 Nov 29, 2012
Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Act 22:9 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.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#484 Nov 29, 2012
Paul tells the LIE of his meeting Jesus 3 times in the BIBLE, and he can not get the story the same any of the three time he tells it.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#485 Nov 29, 2012
A person would think, Meeting the Resurrected Jesus Christ and being struck blind by him, would BURN that encounter into your Psyche,

But Paul has 3 different versions of what happened.

You would think being struck blind be the returned to earth Jesus Christ, would make a Memorable impression upon you, but Paul can not tell the same story twice about this.

Paul tells the story 3 times in the Bible, and not one of them agrees with another of them.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#486 Nov 29, 2012
Is Paul "the False Prophet?"

Yes,

And all that that that includes.

Is Paul "the False Prophet?"

YES,

And all that that that includes.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#487 Nov 29, 2012
the perfect idiot wrote:
A person would think, Meeting the Resurrected Jesus Christ and being struck blind by him, would BURN that encounter into your Psyche,
But Paul has 3 different versions of what happened.
You would think being struck blind be the returned to earth Jesus Christ, would make a Memorable impression upon you, but Paul can not tell the same story twice about this.
Paul tells the story 3 times in the Bible, and not one of them agrees with another of them.
.
Bulk wrap!
.
All you can do is copy/paste LIES about the Bible from atheists-r-us. You evidently are not capable of reading it for yourself and say what the so-called differences are.
.
OBTW merely saying "Paul is the false prophet." over and over does not make it so. If you can, show clear and convincing evidence from scripture that proves it.
.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#488 Nov 29, 2012
the perfect idiot wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sorry, but, I can not understand what you have Posted.
Perhaps if you posted you own words.
I cut and paste on occasion, but I Know what I am cutting and pasting.
I am not able to understand what you have posted.
.
Of course you cannot understand what I posted. That is called scholarship, something you know nothing about.
.
First I quote what the source says then I give the specific source with a link. Within the quotes I posted there are sources in parentheses which show specifically where in the Talmud the quote is found, e.g.(Yer. &#7730;id. 66c; Massek. Soferim xv. 10; Mek., Beshal-la&#7717;, 27a; Tan., Wayera, ed. Buber, 20),(Mi&#7731;. viii. 4, referring to Ezek. l.c.).
So my Question still stands.
What Book tells me I can kill them because they are Gentiles?
I would LIKE TO READ THAT BOOK.
That is all I asked you, what is the Name of the BOOK.
That Is ALL I asked of you.
What book can I read, that says kill them all because they they are gentiles?
.
That is the problem you are spewing a LIE about what I said then asking me to show where your lie is. I did NOT say that any book tells you or anyone else to kill gentiles.
.
What I said was the Talmud says that "The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed." Here is the exact place in the Talmud that quote can be found.(Yer. &#7730;id. 66c; Massek. Soferim xv. 10; Mek., Beshal-la&#7717;, 27a; Tan., Wayera, ed. Buber, 20). I quoted the exact phrase from the Jewish Encyclopedia [JE] and you still lie about it. Here again is a link to the JE that I quoted.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/65...
All I am doing is asking for the Name of the Book, you are "QUOTING" these things from, chapter and verse would be nice,
But lets keep it Simple,
WHAT
BOOK
Do
YOU
SAY
SAYS
I can kill GENTILES?
I like that IDEA,
WHAT BOOK,
SAYS, I can do it?
.
First you are a consummate LIAR. I never said that any book tells you or anyone else to kill gentiles. I am sorry that you are too ignorant to actully read what I post and you have to make up lies and expect me to reply.
.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#489 Nov 29, 2012
the perfect idiot wrote:
A person would think, Meeting the Resurrected Jesus Christ and being struck blind by him, would BURN that encounter into your Psyche,
But Paul has 3 different versions of what happened.
You would think being struck blind be the returned to earth Jesus Christ, would make a Memorable impression upon you, but Paul can not tell the same story twice about this.
Paul tells the story 3 times in the Bible, and not one of them agrees with another of them.
.
For those who copy/paste the argument that the three accounts of Paul's conversion contradict each other and are too stupid/lazy to do actual Bible research.
.
Paul’s Conversion Contradiction Vs. Supplementation
.
Let us now give brief notice to the charge that the records of Paul’s conversion conflict with one another.
.
1. The most-frequently-cited example, that is said to mar the harmony of the narratives, is the alleged conflict between 9:7 and 22:9. The former, in earlier versions (KJV, ASV) states that the men accompanying Saul “heard the voice” of the Lord, while the latter text contends that they “heard not the voice.”
.
A common method of reconciliation has been to note that in 9:7 “hearing”(akouo) is used with the genitive case, which merely specifies that a “sound” was heard. On the other hand, akouo in 22:9 takes an accusative object, which indicates “extent,” i.e., though a sound was heard, the “meaning” was not comprehended. A.T. Robertson, the prince of grammarians, declared that this approach is “perfectly proper”(Historical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919, p. 506).
.
A contemporary scholar suggests that an appropriate harmony is explained best by Luke’s use of different sources to compose his document. Professor Daniel Wallace surmises that Luke preserved the precise phraseology of dual sources (cf. Lk. 1:3), and that his record reflects the fact that both akouo (hear) and phone (voice) are capable of different nuances, e.g., hear/understand and voice/sound. Thus, no contradiction may be charged legitimately, even without the “case” argument (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pp. 133-134).
2. Factual “supplementation”(the addition of non-contradictory details), of course, presents no problem for the perceptive student who is aware of the nature of a genuine discrepancy. And the three “conversion” accounts do supplement one another quite richly. Consider but one example.
.
When Saul opened his eyes, following the brilliant vision, he was unable to see anything, and it was necessary that he should be led by his companions into the city of Damascus. Even though these men also “beheld the light,” they were not blinded (22:9). Why not? This unique detail explains the matter. It was the “glory” of the light, i.e., the radiance of the Lord Jesus himself (22:11; cf. v. 14), that his companions did not see, that temporarily robbed Saul of his vision. Yes, wonderfully complementary are the details, but no contradictions exist.
.
The critic’s charge, as stated at the beginning of this piece, is without credibility. Truth ever triumphs.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/842...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#490 Nov 29, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Which only shows how stupid and ignorant I am. I think I have repeatedly said in this forum I never study, I never research, I never read credible authorities, unlike you and all the other supremely intelligent anti-Christians who study, research, and read credible authorities.
.
We get it already!!!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#491 Nov 29, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
So yet AGAIN I have NOTHING to answer the question with, no big surprise there.
Face it, I am just another mindless Christbot who believes any old lie they feed me, without question.
.
We know!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#492 Nov 29, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
That is about all you are capable of juvenile changing my posts. Grow thief hawk cup.
.
After reading ahead I had to go back to this post to point out how right after making this statement, this >>>IDIOT<<< goes and changes others posts.

Just goes to show that Christians are not always the brightest bulbs in the pack.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#493 Nov 29, 2012
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I'm more like an ember from a burned out match that I peed upon...
No surprise there.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#494 Dec 14, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Bulk wrap!
.
All you can do is copy/paste LIES about the Bible from atheists-r-us. You evidently are not capable of reading it for yourself and say what the so-called differences are.
I thought I was pretty clear, it is in Paul's story of his Transformation on the road to Damascus.
In one telling of it in the Bible Paul says they were Blind but Could not Hear,
And,
In another telling of his Transformation Paul says they were struck dumb but could see.

There is a Third telling BY PAUL, that does not agree with either of the 2 above, and I leave that as a GOLDEN nugget you can find in the Scripture.
Allen Richards wrote:
OBTW merely saying "Paul is the false prophet." over and over does not make it so. If you can, show clear and convincing evidence from scripture that proves it.
.
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Contrast to, Meaning the opposite of

Luk_1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

That is a FALSE PROPHECY That IS pushed about all over the Place.

There is none Righteous, you here that all the Time.
IT IS A FALSE PROPHECY.

There are MANY RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE not only in the Bible but UPON THE EARTH AS I TYPE THIS.

There are MANY RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE
LIVING RIGHT NOW.

Rom_3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

IS A LIE.

And the worst kind of lie.

There are MANY people that are Righteous in the Eyes of GOD,
EVEN AT THIS MINUTE.

This thing Paul is PUSHING
Rom_3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Is not from GOD,
For GOD REWARDS his Followers
GOD does not tell his FOLLOWERS THAT FOLLOW GOD you are Sinners.

GOD says You are my RIGHTEOUS People I reward you for Following me.

Rom_3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Is defeat forever, Depression, Suicide, What is the point of living?


They words of Paul is you Proof Paul is the false prophet.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#495 Dec 14, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
For those who copy/paste the argument that the three accounts of Paul's conversion contradict each other and are too stupid/lazy to do actual Bible research.
.
Paul’s Conversion Contradiction Vs. Supplementation
.
Let us now give brief notice to the charge that the records of Paul’s conversion conflict with one another.
.
1. The most-frequently-cited example, that is said to mar the harmony of the narratives, is the alleged conflict between 9:7 and 22:9. The former, in earlier versions (KJV, ASV) states that the men accompanying Saul “heard the voice” of the Lord, while the latter text contends that they “heard not the voice.”
.
A common method of reconciliation has been to note that in 9:7 “hearing”(akouo) is used with the genitive case, which merely specifies that a “sound” was heard. On the other hand, akouo in 22:9 takes an accusative object, which indicates “extent,” i.e., though a sound was heard, the “meaning” was not comprehended. A.T. Robertson, the prince of grammarians, declared that this approach is “perfectly proper”(Historical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919, p. 506).
.
A contemporary scholar suggests that an appropriate harmony is explained best by Luke’s use of different sources to compose his document. Professor Daniel Wallace surmises that Luke preserved the precise phraseology of dual sources (cf. Lk. 1:3), and that his record reflects the fact that both akouo (hear) and phone (voice) are capable of different nuances, e.g., hear/understand and voice/sound. Thus, no contradiction may be charged legitimately, even without the “case” argument (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pp. 133-134).
2. Factual “supplementation”(the addition of non-contradictory details), of course, presents no problem for the perceptive student who is aware of the nature of a genuine discrepancy. And the three “conversion” accounts do supplement one another quite richly. Consider but one example.
.
When Saul opened his eyes, following the brilliant vision, he was unable to see anything, and it was necessary that he should be led by his companions into the city of Damascus. Even though these men also “beheld the light,” they were not blinded (22:9). Why not? This unique detail explains the matter. It was the “glory” of the light, i.e., the radiance of the Lord Jesus himself (22:11; cf. v. 14), that his companions did not see, that temporarily robbed Saul of his vision. Yes, wonderfully complementary are the details, but no contradictions exist.
.
The critic’s charge, as stated at the beginning of this piece, is without credibility. Truth ever triumphs.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/842...
Damn-ed
You have a whole bunch of study you have done on the subject, and Site researcher one says researcher 2 etc..

I was just going by what the Bible says Paul Said.
You want to bring researcher 1, researcher 2 and researcher 3 into what the Bible says,

I was just going by what the Bible says,
I did not know I was up against researcher 1,2,3 All I had was the Bible to Figure out Paul was the false prophet.

You have like the Researchers of all ages to prove that what the Bible says is not What the Bible says.

Dude just call yourself a Pauline.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#496 Dec 14, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
.
For those who copy/paste the argument that the three accounts of Paul's conversion contradict each other and are too stupid/lazy to do actual Bible research.
.
Paul’s Conversion Contradiction Vs. Supplementation
.
Let us now give brief notice to the charge that the records of Paul’s conversion conflict with one another.
.
1. The most-frequently-cited example, that is said to mar the harmony of the narratives, is the alleged conflict between 9:7 and 22:9. The former, in earlier versions (KJV, ASV) states that the men accompanying Saul “heard the voice” of the Lord, while the latter text contends that they “heard not the voice.”
.
A common method of reconciliation has been to note that in 9:7 “hearing”(akouo) is used with the genitive case, which merely specifies that a “sound” was heard. On the other hand, akouo in 22:9 takes an accusative object, which indicates “extent,” i.e., though a sound was heard, the “meaning” was not comprehended. A.T. Robertson, the prince of grammarians, declared that this approach is “perfectly proper”(Historical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919, p. 506).
.
A contemporary scholar suggests that an appropriate harmony is explained best by Luke’s use of different sources to compose his document. Professor Daniel Wallace surmises that Luke preserved the precise phraseology of dual sources (cf. Lk. 1:3), and that his record reflects the fact that both akouo (hear) and phone (voice) are capable of different nuances, e.g., hear/understand and voice/sound. Thus, no contradiction may be charged legitimately, even without the “case” argument (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pp. 133-134).
2. Factual “supplementation”(the addition of non-contradictory details), of course, presents no problem for the perceptive student who is aware of the nature of a genuine discrepancy. And the three “conversion” accounts do supplement one another quite richly. Consider but one example.
.
When Saul opened his eyes, following the brilliant vision, he was unable to see anything, and it was necessary that he should be led by his companions into the city of Damascus. Even though these men also “beheld the light,” they were not blinded (22:9). Why not? This unique detail explains the matter. It was the “glory” of the light, i.e., the radiance of the Lord Jesus himself (22:11; cf. v. 14), that his companions did not see, that temporarily robbed Saul of his vision. Yes, wonderfully complementary are the details, but no contradictions exist.
.
The critic’s charge, as stated at the beginning of this piece, is without credibility. Truth ever triumphs.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/842...
How do you find the time to get all that copy and paste?

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#497 Dec 15, 2012
the perfect idiot wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you find the time to get all that copy and paste?
.
The same way you find time to copy/paste ALL your arguments from atheists-r-us. You have never read anything for yourself all you do is copy/paste.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#498 Dec 15, 2012
Paul’s Conversion Contradiction Vs. Supplementation
.
Let us now give brief notice to the charge that the records of Paul’s conversion conflict with one another.
.
1. The most-frequently-cited example, that is said to mar the harmony of the narratives, is the alleged conflict between 9:7 and 22:9. The former, in earlier versions (KJV, ASV) states that the men accompanying Saul “heard the voice” of the Lord, while the latter text contends that they “heard not the voice.”
.
A common method of reconciliation has been to note that in 9:7 “hearing”(akouo) is used with the genitive case, which merely specifies that a “sound” was heard. On the other hand, akouo in 22:9 takes an accusative object, which indicates “extent,” i.e., though a sound was heard, the “meaning” was not comprehended. A.T. Robertson, the prince of grammarians, declared that this approach is “perfectly proper”(Historical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919, p. 506).
.
A contemporary scholar suggests that an appropriate harmony is explained best by Luke’s use of different sources to compose his document. Professor Daniel Wallace surmises that Luke preserved the precise phraseology of dual sources (cf. Lk. 1:3), and that his record reflects the fact that both akouo (hear) and phone (voice) are capable of different nuances, e.g., hear/understand and voice/sound. Thus, no contradiction may be charged legitimately, even without the “case” argument (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pp. 133-134).
.
2. Factual “supplementation”(the addition of non-contradictory details), of course, presents no problem for the perceptive student who is aware of the nature of a genuine discrepancy. And the three “conversion” accounts do supplement one another quite richly. Consider but one example.
.
When Saul opened his eyes, following the brilliant vision, he was unable to see anything, and it was necessary that he should be led by his companions into the city of Damascus. Even though these men also “beheld the light,” they were not blinded (22:9). Why not? This unique detail explains the matter. It was the “glory” of the light, i.e., the radiance of the Lord Jesus himself (22:11; cf. v. 14), that his companions did not see, that temporarily robbed Saul of his vision. Yes, wonderfully complementary are the details, but no contradictions exist.
.
The critic’s charge, as stated at the beginning of this piece, is without credibility. Truth ever triumphs.
.
the perfect idiot wrote:
Damn-ed
You have a whole bunch of study you have done on the subject, and Site researcher one says researcher 2 etc..
I was just going by what the Bible says Paul Said.
You want to bring researcher 1, researcher 2 and researcher 3 into what the Bible says,
I was just going by what the Bible says,
I did not know I was up against researcher 1,2,3 All I had was the Bible to Figure out Paul was the false prophet.
You have like the Researchers of all ages to prove that what the Bible says is not What the Bible says.
Dude just call yourself a Pauline.
.
Not interested in your opinion of me or Paul. The copy/paste arguments of atheists are less than meaningless.
.
"Blah, blah, blah researcher 1, etc. blah, blah, blah." You copy/pasted your argument from atheists-r-us. I do not need to reinvent the wheel for every lock-step, follow-the-leader atheist who quotes the same ol', lame ol', arguments. So I copied a refutation, if you don't like it that is your problem.
.
No you did NOT tell me what the Bible says. You told me how your favorite atheist website interprets the Bible.
.
What I posted refutes your copy/paste argument about Paul's accounts of his Damascus road experience contradicting each other. Read it, don't read it, like it, don't like it, I don't care. You have been PWNED!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 8 min KAB 9,565
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 20 min ROG 20,529
A God Who Disagrees With The Data 25 min ROG 469
BIBLE QUESTIONS to KAB 30 min ROG 71
Paul the first anti-christ, financed by Rome..T... (Mar '10) 52 min I love Jesus 683
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 2 hr janeebee 2,433
Blessings Upon You Israel. God Bless you, Israel. 3 hr Cliff09 1
PAUL OUR FATHER . 1Cor 4: 15 (Feb '16) 3 hr Allen Richards 102
More from around the web