There's a lot of stuff that prove Jesus was not a fake, but there are also counter arguments against it.

But, the one definitive proof was the story of Paul. Historians acknowledge it to be valid, and Paul was latered killed by the Romans I believe.

He was once totally against the disciples, Jesus, and the entire Christian faith. He tortured ppl that claimed to believe in Jesus, and he was a jew. But then a one day, he made a 180 degree turn, from Jewish to Christian. How could that be possible, if Jesus was a FAKE.

The reason was, as Paul claimed himself, Jesus appeared to him ONLY in the sky and made him blind. A regular jew would not make up such a thing and follow what he had hated and persecuted.

This is definitive proof Jesus was not a fake, making the main ideas in the Bible real.

look up the Paul in the bible for more info.

What historians?

So Paul had a hallucination and saw a man in the sky and this is proof Jesus was the son of god. Of course.

pics or it didn't happen.

i read it in a book called "case for christ" by a person named lee strobel that was once an atheist journalist by after doing research became a christian. obv i dont remember what historians but ill find it.

That would certainly help. And please provide links to their work.

We wouldn't want to just assume they are "Christian" historians, that might have a certain -- bias. You know what I mean?

lol, your entire demeanor reminds me of myself not too long ago, which is a total douche bag. you think i'm trying to con you into something, lol.

why dont you look up the book?

lol at you thinking i'm like a salesperson trying to con you into buying something. i dont care if you dont believe. i'm just defending what i think is the truth.

Sometime next week I expect all other religions to convert to Christianity in response to this definite proof.

sheeeeit, proof. dammit. guess im off to church, got some sins to confess

you should be a professional debater. I'm sold, sign me up as a Christian now.

our demeanor stems from the fact your OP reads like it was written by a ******.

No offense.

You make some good points about Paul. According to Acts(written by Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and was Paul's companion for much of his ministry) and to Paul's epistles, he was a very committed Jew before his conversion, was present at the martyrdom of Stephen and agreed with that action. He later engaged in persecution of the church, and was on his way to arrest Christians in Damascus when he was converted.

For any Jew to follow Jesus he had to give up his religion and be held a heretic and idolater according to Jewish law. Paul was probably a religious leader and so his conversion is even more significant. He was abandoning his entire life up to that point, probably a life of some authority and prosperity.

He was converted about 35 A.D. and first visited Jerusalem about 37 A.D. He made several other trips there over the next few years. So, even before his conversion(probably within a couple of years of the crucifixion), and while he was an avowed enemy of Christ, and then several more times over the next 15-20 years, he had plenty of opportunity to talk to people who knew Christ, to visit the tomb, and to otherwise investigate the claims of Christians. He had several long meetings with the other apostles, including Peter and James, partly to make sure he was preaching the gospel correctly.

Paul is therefore another excellent evidence for the truth of Christianity. It's very difficult to explain Paul if Jesus didn't exist or wasn't resurrected.

How is it that you will leave no stone unturned to "disprove" evolution, but weak circumstancuals such as these are unquestionably accepted as strong proof of your religion?

So wait, let me see if I have this right. Paul, before his conversion, had plenty of opportunities to investigate the claims of Christians... but what he saw was unconvincing to him up until he experienced his hallucination?

omg it wasnt a hallucination u guys he saw jesus in the sky op proved it....

I think that another possible explanation was that he investigated Christianity and then converted. Then made up the story of seeing Jesus in the sky to add more proof to Christianity and allow him to become more accepted by those followers of Christ.

Why would he do such a thing? Well, in the Bible times I imagine people were a lot more receptive of these claims as religious experiences especially as their scientific knowledge was primitive compared to what we take for granted. Also, I often make up a little elaborate tale when talking to people to defend my actions or to get myself out of trouble. e.g. last night I pretended I got kicked out a club for fighting when really I just went home because I was bored.

I'm not saying this is what happened it's just that there are so many explanations other than he saw Jesus in the sky.

We know relatively little of Paul. What we do know is that he gained control of a dedicated religious group (installing himself as the more-or-less unquestioned leader). We also know that he gained enough of a reputation that his name is still known throughout the world.

What did he gain? Probably power, fame, influence. Maybe wealth.

When a cruel, power-hungry guy who has been fighting against your group suddenly does a 180, the rational response is not awe but suspicion. If the same power-hungry guy claims that he has been divinely appointed as your leader, the rational response is not "okayyupletsdowhathesays," it's extreme suspicion.

I can think of a dozen or so explanations for Paul if Jesus didn't exist or wasn't resurrected.

The fact that he didn't believe before he was converted is testimony to the power of sin. Paul explains what he was like before he became a Christian - evidence and reason never work alone.

Yeah, looks like the American Dream to me.


Paul's date and manner of death are unknown but early accounts say he was martyred in Rome.

Acts 9:
26(AN)When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.

Edit:

There's also this:

Not only did he devote his entire life to preaching and serving, not only did he die for his message, but he remained single and worked for his living.

Yes, let's take his word for it, shall we?

Regardless, that sounds exactly like Joseph Smith. If being beaten and eventually killed for one's beliefs represents evidence, then the Mormons have it.

But I'll go on and believe that Joseph Smith was motivated by glory and fame, despite his beatings and eventual death at the hands of a mob for his beliefs.

See, when we look at corrupt cult leaders, this is exactly what we see. So to claim that it's evidence against Paul being a corrupt cult leader is absurdly illogical.

Anyone who compare Joseph Smith to Paul is too ignorant to deserve an answer.

anyone who writes the nonsense above is too ignorant to understand a correct answer.

We can compare him to David Koresh if you'd prefer. Or maybe Jim Jones?

Ok, but please understand that you suck at it.

At least NotReady sounds intelligent. You do your case no good by writing like a 14-year old.