special answer to 16 things,

This was put on comment section on the isssue. Its not 16 but starts umberingthem at 16. Anonymous said... 16) None of my claims about Paul are "ridiculous", though your zeal for Jesus obbiously causes you to overstate your opponents' alleged errors. i don't even know what they are You "debunked" nothing about my claims about Paul. Once again, you errarntly think that because the story exists and isn't as contradictory as possible, all readers are intellectually or morally compelled to trust it as truth, or admit their skepticism is unreasonable. Stop using dirty needles, you gutter rat. i have bo idea whatthehell this guy is refirring to You also didn't get close to demonstrating that it was my "emotions" that were the basis for my arguments. obviousoy ths guy thinks i'vevbeen attackig him I don't know who he is. I wasn't proving atheism from my attack on Paul. I was only criticizing the credibility of Luke and Paul. Their being first-rate liars wouldn't disprove god anymore than it would disprove the tooth-fairy. 17) I agree with you there is no analogy to be found in the Millerite comparison, but the comparison was made by either you or your source. Furthermore, your admission that the Jesus followers did not originally believe in a resurrection sucks for YOU, because it is highly unlikely they would view all the miracles of Jesus and his resurrecting Lazarus, and STILL be so thickheaded as to find his promise of rising from the dead too unbelievable to credit. IMO, the stupidity of the disciples is a literary fiction intended to make the contrast betweeen their stupidity and their discovery of the risen Christ more dramatic than it actually was. Gee, ancient Jews never exaggerated anything, did they? 18) Your inability to express your opinion about my argument, is not an argument. Try again. 19) So you think I made a good argument by saying death of a loved one is more likely to lead to cognitive dissonance? Gee, how much did the disciples "love" Jesus? 20) My theory that the earliest resurrection belief was entirely spiritual in nature is supported by the fact that Luke felt compelled to add fictional physical elements to Paul's absurd "vision" experience of Jesus in Acts, thus winding up giving the reader a completely incoherent story about how Paul could see the other guy standing there, but his traveling companions couldn't see the other guy that was supposed to be there. If 5 people are walking together and experience a car carsh, but only 1 witness testifies to understanding the sound of the screeching tires, while the other 4 testify they didn't understand such sound, you don't have reliable witnesses. And I don't pretend to know what exactly paul believed about Jesus resurreciton, only that his comments are inconsistent with the spiritualized version given in Acts. It may very well be that as time progressed, Paul's story of his conversion started adding fictional physical elements, the way most scholars insist John was written give e a lik to whereI aid all this 11:52 AM