Russell's Criticisms of Christianity & Jesus

5wize

Well-known member
The scriptures support what I have said. Not only did I provide 2, AV1611VET provided scripture as well.

You are demonstrating that you YOU make-it-up as you go along.

You have also demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about biblical hermeneutics. Your statement regarding the Apostle Paul reveals your ignorance of proper interpretation.


Acts 9:17 17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the LORD-Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here-has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."


From Got Questions.

The events that happened on the road to Damascus relate not only to the apostle Paul, whose dramatic conversion occurred there, but they also provide a clear picture of the conversion of all people. While some have an extraordinarily dramatic conversion known as a “Damascus Road experience,” the conversion of all believers follows a similar pattern of Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, described in Paul’s own words in Acts 9:1–9; Acts 22:6–11; and Acts 26:9–20.

Putting the three accounts together, the details of this amazing experience come together. Paul, who went by the name of Saul at that time, was on his way to Damascus with a letter from the high priest of the temple in Jerusalem giving him authority to arrest any who belonged to “the Way,” meaning those who followed Christ. So intent was he on “opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9) that in “raging fury,” he breathed “threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord.” Here was a man who truly hated Christ and all who were associated with Him.

Suddenly a bright light shone on Saul, causing his entire party to fall to the ground. Then Jesus spoke to Saul, asking him, “Why are you persecuting me?” in a voice understood only by him. Saul recognized that this was a deity of some sort because he called Him “Lord” and asked who He was. When Jesus identified Himself as the very One Saul had been persecuting, one can only imagine the terror that filled Saul’s heart. Saul was speechless, no doubt thinking to himself, “I’m a dead man.” The Acts 22 version of the story indicates that Saul’s response was to ask what Jesus wanted him to do. The Acts 9 and Acts 22 retellings of the story have Saul saying Jesus told him to rise and go to Damascus where he would be told what to do.

In the Acts 26 story, which is longer and more detailed, Saul describes Jesus’ commission of him as His messenger to the Gentiles (which must have amazed Saul, the ultimate Gentile-hating Pharisee), to turn many from darkness to the light and from the power of Satan to God. His message of forgiveness of sins and “a place among those who are sanctified by faith” must have also astonished Saul because the Jews were convinced they alone had the place of honor in God’s eyes.

There is no discrepancy or contradiction among these three accounts. Even though Saul received his commission from Jesus on the road, he still had to go into Damascus and be told what to do—meet with Ananias who laid hands on him, receive the Holy Spirit, be baptized, and be received by the disciples there (Acts 9:15–16, 19; 22:12–16). At Damascus, he also went for three days without eating or drinking, and then received his sight, which had been taken from him on the road.

The phrase “Damascus Road experience” is used to describe a conversion which is dramatic and startling. Many people receive Christ in a life-changing, instantaneous experience, although many others describe their conversion as more of a gradual understanding of the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But both types of experiences have several things in common. First, salvation is of the Lord, by His will and according to His plan and purpose (Acts 22:14). As He does one way or another to each of us, Jesus made it clear to Saul that he had gone his own way for long enough. Now he was to become an instrument in the hands of the Master to do His will as He had foreordained it.

Second, the response of both Saul and all those who are redeemed by Christ is the same: “What do you want me to do?” Like Saul, we do not bargain, negotiate, question, or come halfway. The response of the redeemed is obedience. When God truly touches our hearts, our only response can be, “Lord, may your will be done and may you use me to do it.” Such was the experience of Saul on the Damascus Road.


Saul’s dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus was the beginning of an incredible journey. And while not all conversions are as startling as Saul’s, each of us is commissioned by Jesus to live in obedience to Him (John 14:15), love one another in His name (1 John 2:23), “know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,” (Philippians 3:10), and tell the world of the wonderful riches in Christ.
Only a Christian can actually print all the discrepancies in the Road to Damascus versions as you did above and them claim they don't exist. Wow! Well, that's hermeneutics in a nut-shell!

Now back to Genesis. The weakness of your position here shows as your posts get longer, and longer, and longer and your home-spun hermeneutic still evades the issue. You can try again:

Gen 3:16-22
The bible only states that woman will bear children in pain and be subject to her husband. Adam would toil the earth for food. That's it. Nothing about death, disease, sin, or anything else. Read it again and show me where I'm wrong.

Gen 3:22 also proves that man was not created immortal or the tree of life would not be needed.
 
Last edited:

AV1611VET

Well-known member
I did. My conclusion is that if Paul, a Hellenistic educated Jew came out of Arabia without a chronicle of the most important interface to humanity or himself that will ever be, and instead we get only these scant letters of an itinerant cult leader (some of which are guaranteed forgeries) wandering the perimeter of the Levant trying to gain converts to a new dime-a-dozen cult by contradicting himself as well as Jesus just to play to the differing ears of each crowd , well, you draw your own conclusion.

Sounds to me like academia is falsely profiling a great man of the Bible.

I wonder why academia would do that?

Do you suppose she is being influenced by the Muses, who work for Satan?
 

5wize

Well-known member
Sounds to me like academia is falsely profiling a great man of the Bible.

I wonder why academia would do that?

Do you suppose she is being influenced by the Muses, who work for Satan?
It isn't academia. It's the bible. If Satan were involved, it would be to confuse - like the Bible.

Do you have view as to why a Hellenistic educated Jew came out of Arabia without a chronicle of the most important interface to humanity or himself that will ever be? Maybe Satan wants you to think he didn't so he can own you as he goes.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Falsely profiling a great man of God in the Bible, using high-falutin philosophical language and historical revisionism to do it?

Ya -- it has all the earmarks of academia.
You can just read the Bible and get that job done. No need for academia at all on that count. That's exactly what does it for most that start with curiosity and a sense of internal need, then run away into some other new-age cult garbage to fulfill that need, or Buddhism, or Taoism, or abandon it altogether once they start reading the biblical nonsense.

Academia just follows up with the external historical critique of the biblical history and puts the nail in the coffin for the rational minded that already suspect it is jibberish just by reading what the bible says and claims.

Do you have view as to why a Hellenistic educated Jew came out of Arabia without a chronicle of the most important interface to humanity or himself that will ever be?
 
Last edited:

AV1611VET

Well-known member
You can just read the Bible and get that job done. No need for academia at all on that count. That's exactly what does it for most that start with curiosity and a sense of internal need, then run away into some other new-age cult garbage to fulfill that need, or Buddhism, or Taoism, or abandon it altogether once they start reading the biblical nonsense.

Academia just follows up with the external historical critique of the biblical history and puts the nail in the coffin for the rational minded that already suspect it is jibberish just by reading what the bible says and claims.

Do you have view as to why a Hellenistic educated Jew came out of Arabia without a chronicle of the most important interface to humanity or himself that will ever be?
Thanks for the QED.
 

AV1611VET

Well-known member
Do you have view as to why a Hellenistic educated Jew came out of Arabia without a chronicle of the most important interface to humanity or himself that will ever be?

I have no idea what you're asking.

You didn't even know Paul was in Arabia, or that he was taught by Jesus himself there, until I explained it.

Now you want to keep asking questions.

Stop and let what you've been taught sink in for awhile.

And don't be so trigger-happy with those question marks.
 

5wize

Well-known member
I have no idea what you're asking.

You didn't even know Paul was in Arabia, or that he was taught by Jesus himself there, until I explained it.
Um, wrong. I knew that he went to Arabia. This is common knowledge to any critic of Pauline doctrine, which I am one. What I know that you got totally wrong was that you thought he spent 3 years there. He spent an undetermined amount of time there and spent 3 years in Damascus immediately afterwards. It wasn't germane to my point so I didn't want to focus on that ignorance (from a Christian no less).
Now you want to keep asking questions.

Stop and let what you've been taught sink in for awhile.

And don't be so trigger-happy with those question marks.
So with that out of the way - Given that you think Paul talked directly with Jesus for 3 years in Arabia (nonsense - even given the Biblical account) do you have view as to why a Hellenistic educated Jew that can read and write, unlike most of the apostles, came out of Arabia without a chronicle of the most important interface to humanity or himself that will ever be?
 

AV1611VET

Well-known member
So with that out of the way - Given that you think Paul talked directly with Jesus for 3 years in Arabia (nonsense - even given the Biblical account) do you have view as to why a Hellenistic educated Jew that can read and write, unlike most of the apostles, came out of Arabia without a chronicle of the most important interface to humanity or himself that will ever be?
Take it easy.

Draw some bathwater.

Put in some Mr Bubble.

And let it all sink in.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Take it easy.

Draw some bathwater.

Put in some Mr Bubble.

And let it all sink in.
Your response betrays your need of Mr. Bubble, not mine. My study of Paul seems to have comfortably sunk in with me way prior to you being newly challenged by your lack of knowing the origins of your own beliefs. You seem unnerved as proven by your evasiveness.

Now focus. Given that you think Paul talked directly with Jesus for 3 years in Arabia (nonsense - even given the Biblical account) do you have a view as to why a Hellenistic educated Jew that can read and write, unlike most of the apostles, came out of Arabia without a chronicle of the most important interface to humanity or himself that will ever be?
 
Last edited:

AV1611VET

Well-known member
Now focus. Given that you think Paul talked directly with Jesus for 3 years in Arabia (nonsense - even given the Biblical account) do you have a view as to why a Hellenistic educated Jew that can read and write, unlike most of the apostles, came out of Arabia without a chronicle of the most important interface to humanity or himself that will ever be?
Given that I don't know what you're asking?

"Without a chronicle"?

What chronicle? the Old Testament?

And if you're ready to handle another piece of deep theology about Paul, do you realize he was God's choice to replace Judas?

So chronicle or no chronicle, he was tutored by the Lord himself, just like the Lord himself tutored His other disciples for three years.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Another atheist who has not been able to exegete scripture properly. Adam died period.
Not on the day God said.
Yes, he did.
No, he didn't.
Prior to sin men were immortal. Adam thought he was smarter than God and hence all men became mortal. Even you and I. You don't have an understanding of scripture which is why you make these mistakes. If you took the time to learn, I daresay you might be able to present a better objection. But you won't.
"Mortal" does not mean "died".

You don't have an understanding of English which is why you make these mistakes. If you took the time to learn, I daresay you might be able to address objections better. But you won't.
Romans 5:12

New American Standard Bible 1995

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Neither says nor implies that Adam died on the day God said he would.
Personally, I see you trying to argue with people who mostly know their Bibles, as a foolish act.
Personally, I couldn't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys for how you see it.
 

AV1611VET

Well-known member
Your response betrays your need of Mr. Bubble, not mine. My study of Paul seems to have comfortably sunk in with me way prior to you being newly challenged by your lack of knowing the origins of your own beliefs. You seem unnerved as proven by your evasiveness.

Now focus. Given that you think Paul talked directly with Jesus for 3 years in Arabia (nonsense - even given the Biblical account) do you have a view as to why a Hellenistic educated Jew that can read and write, unlike most of the apostles, came out of Arabia without a chronicle of the most important interface to humanity or himself that will ever be?
I just caught that little dig on the rest of Jesus' disciples.

Does that apply to Jesus as well?

John 7:14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.
15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
 

AV1611VET

Well-known member
Why would I find it disappointing?

Perhaps you (and other Christians) are inventing meanings for what God said to avoid the fact that, as written, he was wrong?

We invented the tripartite nature of man, did we?

Really?

What's this?

Genesis 2:7 = dust, breath, soul

Mark 12:30 heart, soul, mind, strength

1 Thessalonians 5:23 = spirit, soul, body

Hebrews 4:12 = soul, spirit, joints and marrow, heart

1 John 5:8 = Spirit, water, blood

Who did you say invented this again?
 
Top