[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> What little I read this morning, was a whole lot of things supposedly of   
   >>> what   
   >>> he said and thought, but it was clear that people cherry picked phrases   
   that   
   >>> lent themselves to support their personal agendas. According to what you   
   >>> outlined it would seem that Paine had at best a shallow and limited   
   >>> understanding of the Bible, and virtually no personal knowledge of God.   
   >>>   
   >>> I will make a brief comment to each numeric point. LOL, hopefully brief.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> An interesting contradiction occurs with Paul's testimony, which was   
   >>>> pointed out by Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers. Here it   
   >>>> is in outline form:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 1) Paul, while being a Jew, claims to have persecuted Christians, a   
   >>>> claim also made about him by the author of Acts.   
   >>>   
   >>> This point shows and gives an understanding of how little attention he paid   
   >>> to the NT.   
   >>> It is obvious that he was a chief persecutor and he explained why.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 2) When someone persecutes another, especially, a strange, it is   
   >>>> because you do not like what that person has done, is saying, and/or   
   >>>> certain viewpoints that they, as a group, hold to. (As an example, it   
   >>>> is possible for a Jew and a Muslim to hate each other even though they   
   >>>> have never met.)   
   >>>   
   >>> That would describe his agenda for those he persecuted. He took the   
   attitude   
   >>> of a Muslim towards the destruction of all those who opposed his religious   
   >>> mindset, under the authority of the High Priest of his day.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 3) As such, Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, must have   
   >>>> head the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead, which must   
   >>>> have included the so-called appearances of Jesus to the "five hundred".   
   >>>> In spite of hearing those accounts, Paul continued to persecute   
   >>>> Christians; as such, Paul himself did not find the accounts of Jesus   
   >>>> being raised from the dead by God as being convincing.   
   >>>   
   >>> He may have heard, and was aware of the reports. Especially because he was   
   >>> chief amongst the Pharisees. Like the typical atheist of today, they hear   
   >>> much and deny all, and this was also the mindset of the Jews who persecuted   
   >>> their brother Jew who believed in Christ. To them it was heresy. Yet the OT   
   >>> spoke of the Messiah that was to come, when, and where, and what he would   
   >>> do.   
   >>> They had an idea that he was to come and set them up as a ruling Nation   
   over   
   >>> all other nations. And that will happen in the future, but many looked for   
   >>> it   
   >>> happening then, even demanding that he be that or else be denied. The NT   
   >>> spells it out but few pay attention to it so that they might understand the   
   >>> MO of that day amongst the religious Jew.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 4) It was only after Paul's private experience that he converted.   
   >>>   
   >>> It was only then that he was hit full face with the undeniable truth that   
   he   
   >>> could not ignore. No longer could he deny and put things off and discount   
   >>> the   
   >>> truth without cause. The believer who came to him and healed him of his   
   >>> blindness and spoke to him, as commanded by God, was fearful of doing so,   
   >>> based on Sauls reputation for killing and torturing believers. Said so to   
   >>> God, yet he went to him and ministered to him what God said he should do.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Conclusion: The only evidence that Paul offers for the Risen Christ is   
   >>>> his private experience, as he himself discounted all the experiences of   
   >>>> all the other Christians who claimed to have experienced the Risen Christ.   
   >>>   
   >>> Personal experiential knowledge, yes. But it also revealed to him that he   
   >>> was persecuting others by believing lies. And that what the other apostles   
   >>> taught was indeed true.   
   >>   
   >> I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and any   
   >> "appearances" to the contrary after his Passion were purely   
   >> physiological in nature.   
   >>   
   >> Dawn   
   >   
   > Then by those standards any denials of it are also physiological in nature.   
   >   
   > Dead caterpillars turn into Butterflies.   
   >   
   > Interesting that you used the word “Passion”.   
   >   
      
   Why?  "Passion" is defined in Merriam-Webster:   
      
   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/passion   
      
   As for "denials" being "physiological", one could make the same claim   
   about the FSM and/or Orbiting Teapots:   
      
   https://russell.humanities.mcmaster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/11-69.pdf   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)