Burden of Proof

You are telling me what you believe, which is the common mantra one would here in Sunday school. This is good for the faithful, but fails in terms of providing you with the right to lay down assertions which you feel others should accept as �fact�. Paul never met Jesus, Paul came with a claim which differed from what the Jews taught and believed, his proof of authority, the last time I looked, is extremely �short�. We can believe letters attributed him about how great he is, but I must point out that as far as proof goes, it is �weak�.

So, for you, the proof of Paul�s authority is what he wrote about himself in letters. Nice.

Furthermore, I find your statement ambiguous,

  The fact that his authority and statements were accepted by the Church shows how this was common knowledge.

In other words,

-Paul is right

-The Church believes Paul is right

-Paul is right

Reply by Apollos:

Andalus � When I referred to the Church, I was referring to the Church that existed during Paul�s day. They had the ability to check with Peter, James and others as to Paul�s authority. They had the ability to know if Paul�s claims of performing signs and wonders was true. The fact that these people accepted Paul is very significant. Your remarks don�t address this.

Since Paul was actually engaged in creating the "Church" at the time exactly who is it that would question him or his policies? Peter and James were in Jerusalem and when they all finally did meet Peter and Paul had a very public falling out over Peter's refusal to eat with gentiles. Peter, who had actually known Jesus....

Paul had very little to do with the church in Jerusalem and virtually no contact. He never met Jesus, writes almost nothing about Jesus, and actually denied the works of Jesus in some cases such as equality of women, yet he is virtually single-handedly responsible for the founding of Christianity. People listened to Paul because he told them what they wanted to hear: that faith in Jesus is all of the salvation that you need and to make it even easier, if you wanted to be a Christian you didn't even have to follow any of God's Laws put forth in the Old Testament. Who wouldn't want to belong to such a religion?

The passages of the Bible which mention the resurrection of Jesus clearly distinguish between Jesus and God.

You may see the three persons as One God, but it is clear that the disciples did not.

This being said, it is still your burden to prove that Jesus raised himself from the dead. Since this is the brunt of your argument that Jesus is divine I would hope that you have more than just your belief as proof.

Ron Webb wrote: Shasta'sAunt wrote: This being said, it is still your burden to prove that Jesus raised himself from the dead. Since this is the brunt of your argument that Jesus is divine I would hope that you have more than just your belief as proof.   Just as it is the Muslim's burden to prove that Muhammad was a Messenger of God.  Eighteen pages of discussion so far, and I don't think I've seen anyone respond to Apollos' original question.

it is only fair that he actually show how Jesus met the burden of proof.

 

Ron Webb, I will leave you with your own words: 

"I don't understand, Apollos.  It seems to me that anyone making magical claims ought to be prepared to prove them.  Why do you feel that Muslims have a burden of proof, but not Christians?"

Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 24 April 2009 at 6:16pm

Did God send down a list of criteria regarding Prophethood?

Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 26 April 2009 at 1:38pm