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