Originally posted by @fmf
Look into it and read it if you are genuinely interested. If you're not, don't worry about it. I'm not interested in summarizing it for people who aren't interested enough in the book and its subject matter to track it down and read it themselves, as I have. It's a hefty and intricately argued tome. And it's an enjoyable and academically provocative read, even if one is not persuaded by it.

So you really had no purpose in posting the title of the book beyond attempting to give your position the appearance of authority and legitimacy?

Why post something and then refuse to discuss it?

Originally posted by @romans1009
So you’re now saying there are no eyewitness accounts. Does that immediately render what happened invalid in your view?

Do you think Luke, the author of Acts, spoke with people in the aftermath of the event?

I've asked you a straight forward question. What eye witness accounts are there you can show me? If there are none, so be it. If you believe the one account there is, that's fine. We don't know who this "Luke" was anyway.

If someone were to think one account of something claiming there were, say, 500 witnesses to something means that there are 500 eye witness accounts, then I wouldn't agree.

Originally posted by @fmf
I've asked you a straight forward question. What eye witness accounts are there you can show me? If there are none, so be it. If you believe the one account there is, that's fine. We don't know who this "Luke" was anyway.

If someone were to think one account of something claiming there were, say, 500 witnesses to something means that there are 500 eye witness accounts, then I wouldn't agree.

You shifted your position from saying there were no eyewitnesses to saying there were no eyewitness accounts.

Now that I know what you’re trying to say and you’re no longer confused, I’ll address your point later as I already said.

Originally posted by @romans1009
So you really had no purpose in posting the title of the book beyond attempting to give your position the appearance of authority and legitimacy?

My purpose in posting information about the book was so that anyone interested in the subject matter can read it if they want. I am not claiming to be an "authority" on it.

Originally posted by @fmf
My purpose in posting information about the book was so that anyone interested in the subject matter can read it if they want. I am not claiming to be an "authority" on it.

Never said you were an authority. Apparently you’re confused again. I said you likely mentioned the book to give your position the appearance of authority and legitimacy.

Understand the difference?

Have a good day. TTYL!

Originally posted by @romans1009
You shifted your position from saying there were no eyewitnesses to saying there were no eyewitness accounts.

Now that I know what you’re trying to say and you’re no longer confused, I’ll address your point later as I already said.

Well? Are there any eye witness accounts? If you want to answer "yes" and then not show me them, I am happy to settle for that.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Never said you were an authority. Apparently you’re confused again. I said you likely mentioned the book to give your position the appearance of authority and legitimacy.

Understand the difference?

Have a good day. TTYL!

I am not claiming to have any "appearance of authority". Have a look at the book if you're interested. If not, don't.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Do you think Luke, the author of Acts, spoke with people in the aftermath of the event?

There's absolutely no way of knowing how many mouths/ears the story passed through before whoever "Luke" might have been wrote an acount of it... in whatever decade he might have wrote it in.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]But after his Damascus conversion, he did a 360.

At least you got this part right.[/b]

About 10% of his life in the Bible was fighting Christianity and the other 95% was spent defending it.

Originally posted by @whodey
About 10% of his life in the Bible was fighting Christianity and the other 95% was spent defending it.

If "he did a 360" as you claimed, then wouldn't 100% of "his life in the Bible" have been spent fighting the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry?

"Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
----- Thomas Jefferson

"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"
----- Soren Kierkegaard

Originally posted by @fmf

The nature and source of The Authority of Paul and The Authority of Muhammad, both rooted in unwitnessed events where they claimed to have met or communicated with supernatural beings and got given instructions, are similar in certain key ways, from the point of view of historical credibility.

Anyway. Never mind.

Hit and run.
Criticism and instant apathy.

Actually FMF you could learn more about this. Mohammed doubted that what he first got as messages in a cave were from God. He thought he was contacted by demons.

Two women in his life persuaded him to keep on receiving the messages.

Paul never had any misgivings about Who appeared to him on his way to persecute the disciples of Jesus in Damascus.

There are other differences. Paul kept his mouth closed about some of his transcendent experiences for 14 years. Unlike many sensationalist TV evangelists who couldn't keep something spectacular secret for even a few days, Paul exercised much self control. For fourteen years he kept quiet about miraculous experiences he had.

If he thought that relating his experience would do nothing but stir up people's curiosity, he wouldn't say anything. He definitely was not a sensationalist.

Refer to Second Corinthians which can be considered his most autobiographical epistle.

And I would say there is no comparison between the ethical living of Paul and the bloody indulgence of Muhammed.

( I am taking this year to read the Quran )

Originally posted by @sonship
Hit and run.
Criticism and instant apathy.

Just a perspective. And an aside. Believe what you want, sonship.

Originally posted by @fmf
Just a perspective. And an aside. Believe what you want, sonship.

It was not a terribly accurate perspective.

I do want to have realistic perspectives.

Originally posted by @sonship
It was not a terribly accurate perspective.

I do want to have realistic perspectives.

Look, no one is asking you to abandon believing in Jesus and follow me instead ~ a motivation you often like to attribute to me [and then scoff at] ~ and no one [let alone hundreds of people on this website] is going to get burned in "Hell" by a demented supernatural being for reading my non-Christian posts ~ another consequence you have attributed to me in the past ~ so propagate whatever perspectives you want.

You should read that book I recommended. It's got a scholarly density to it that might appeal to you for the few days it would take to go through it armed with a copy of the Bible, like I did. I can let you have an audiobook version of it if you're interested.

Originally posted by @fmf

Look, no one is asking you to abandon believing in Jesus and follow me instead ~ a motivation you often like to attribute to me [and then scoff at]
---------------------------------------------------

There is no need to get so upset.
You made a comment and it was commented on.

Now's the time to show that (unlike me) YOU can stand criticism ... supposedly. Right? I'm the guy who doesn't like my beliefs examined? Remember?


~ and no one [let alone hundreds of people on this website] is going to get burned in "Hell" by a demented supernatural being for reading my non-Christian posts ~ another consequence you have attributed to me in the past ~ so propagate whatever perspectives you want.
----------------------------------------------------------------

What a leap.
What is this? "If in trouble immediately bring up the most feared and objectionable subject ... HEEELLLL !!!
That''ll do the trick.


You should read that book I recommended.
---------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I should. Okay.


It's got a scholarly density to it that might appeal to you for the few days it would take to go through it armed with a copy of the Bible, like I did. I can let you have an audiobook version of it if you're interested.
-----------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for your willingness to go through the trouble,

I would have to go back and look at what you're talking about. Let me examine what I glossed over without paying much attention.

It was that quip you made that caught my eye.
I admit that often I just skim posts.
Generally, you see, like you, I pretty much know what to expect from certain posters.

More Moslems should be invited to come to this Forum, I think.