[continued from previous message]   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)