Define literal vs non-literal.

I think you have written nonsense here Theodoric. And I would include the speeches Luke records Paul making in the book of Acts.It may be true that the four Gospels had not yet been written while Paul was writing. That does not mean that the events had not occured or that the Jesus Paul wrote about was not a literal person.Paul obviously was writing about the Person of Jesus in connection with historical events which he knew had occured. But his audience to a great degree, and obviously were familiar with the events and the person.If he were deceived about historical facts much of his audience were apparently also aware of those matters. This is a selective over generalization. Yes, some of Paul's writing is about a mystical Christ who is the Spirit - ie. "the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) That aspect of Christ is crucial to God's new testament economy.
That is not a non-literal person to Christians. He said He would manifest Himself to His disciples but the world would not see Him - (See John 14).You selectively generalize that the Christ as the Spirit of Christ is all Paul wrote about Jesus. That is selective bias to intentionally ignore some of Paul's words about Christ.Doesn't First Corinthians 15 discuss the resurrection of Jesus and His appearances to disciples, some of which were still alive to refute or verify what Paul was telling the church in Corinth ?A person in heaven is not a non-literal person. A person who Paul preaches will come again in a second advent is also not a non-literal person.And a person affirms had risen from the dead as witnessed by 500 brethren at one time, (some of which were still alive), is not a non-literal person.And of course to people of faith who experience Christ in His form as the Holy Spirit, Christ today in His availability is not a non-literal person, albeit a supernatural and unusual Person. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Theodoric you wrote the following about Paul: The general outline of events is recorded in the Gospels, if not in all of the details. " ... Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; [ OT Scriptures ]

​

And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;

​

And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve;

​

Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep.

​

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles." (1 Cor. 15:3b- 7)The death and resurrection of Jesus was recorded in the four Gospels.The sequence and witnesses may not have been mentioned, ie. James. But the resurrection was. So you cannot say Paul wrote of nothing of Christ as was written about in the Gospels.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Here Paul refers to a saying of Jesus which I don't think we not find in the Gospels. Regardless, it seems a quotation that Paul attributes to Jesus speaking, not in Heaven, but while He had an earthly ministry: "In all things I [Paul] have shown you by example that toiling in this way we ought to support the weak and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35)Paul spoke here of a teaching of a Jesus while He walked on earth.

Reply removed.You were speaking mainly to Theodoric.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You can see it in the most basic Christian teaching of Paul, the book of Romans. " Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, a called apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, Which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, Concerning His [God's] Son, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh, Who was designated the Son of God in power according to the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 1:1-4) There is no reason to believe that this reference is so abstract and other worldly that it cannot refer to a Jesus rooted in history.The clock of history does not stop and we ascend into some nebulous, abstract realm when it says " His Son, Who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh".Paul goes on to mention that this descendent of David according to the flesh was "designated the Son of God in power ... out of the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ ..." The birth of Jesus is mentioned here, flesh wise, a descendent of David another historical character. The promise of the Hebrew Scriptures about then coming historical events is mentioned. And the resurrection is mentioned.The point is that this is a Jesus Christ rooted in history.In chapters 9 through 11 of Romans Paul discusses theological themes based upon Israel's rejection of Jesus as the Deliverer. Aside from the theology the facts underneath are conveyed as historical events.For example - "They [Israel] stumbled at the stone of stumbling, a rock of offense, and he who believes on Him shall not be put to shame."The "stumbling" in context entails Christ's historical rejection, sentencing, and execution instigated by the religious clerical class in Israel. This was addressed already.But Paul "talks" about his own reputation of opposing the church. Those who called on the name of Jesus he hauled away to prisons.Paul's conversion and first attempts to preach the Gospel establish a link between the events of the Gospels and his ideas - "And one he had taken food, he [Saul / Paul] ... was with the disciples in Damascus for some days.

​

And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, that this One is the Son of God.

​

AND ALL WHO HEARD HIM were amazed and said, Is this not the one who ravaged those who call upon this name [Jesus] IN JERUSALEM and came here for this, that he might bring them bound before the chief prists?" (Acts 9:19-22)His audience associated Paul's speeches with the all the events of Christ's disciples' persecution in Jerusalem about the name of Jesus. I think you have to be pretty dense or dishonest to spin this to having nothing to do with the Jesus of the four Gospels.The same persecution aimed at Jesus is now directed towards Paul. "But Saul was all the more empowered, and he counfounded the Jews dwelling in Damascus by proving that this One is the Christ. And as a considerable number of days were being fulfilled, the Jews took counsel together to do away with him; But their plot was made known to Saul ...." (Acts 9:22-24a) Essentially what this shows is that Paul's words from his early conversion, were understood by his audience to be about the events of the four Gospels, especially the rejection of "this One" Whom Paul NOW agrees is as Christ and His 12 apostles affirmed - "this One is the Son of God".Ie, In essence Paul is testifying publically - "I Saul now agree with the apostles of Jesus and side with them and with Jesus. I have turned from a persecutor, as those who opposed Jesus, to a disciple and supporter of that proclamation."Then we have also Paul's referencing both John the Baptist and the historical trial in Jerusalem, execution, and resurrection of Jesus (David's descendent). And the way it is told his audience seems familiar with the associated events:See Acts 13:16-411.) Paul refers to Jesus as a descendent of David - "From this man's seed, God, accoirding to promise, brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus ... (13:23) 2.) Paul refers to John the Baptist - "After John had proclaimed, prior to His [Christ's] public entrance, a baptism of repentence to all the people of Israel.

​

Now as John was completing his course, he said, What do you suppose that I am? I am not [the Christ] . But behold, One is coming after me, the sandels of whose feet I am not worthy to untie."" (13:24,25)3.) Paul refers to Christ's trial - "For those dwelling in Jerusalem and their rulers, being ignorant of this One and of the words of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by judging [Him]. And though they did not find one cause of death in Him, they asked of Pilate that He be done away with." (vs. 27,28) 4.) Paul goes on to the resurrection - "But God raised Him from the dead. And for many days He appeared to those who had come up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now His witnesses to the people." (vs. 30,31) 5.) Paul goes on to speak of the resurrection as being fulfillment of familiar prophetic words concerning David and his Son in 13:33-37).Paul was speaking in a synagogue. All the events spoken of span a range from the Exodus from Egypt (v.17) to the apostolic announcement of Christ as the risen Son of God (v.31,32)I think the evidence leans towards his Jewish synagogue audience being familiar with the events spoken of by Paul. Paul is apparently reviewing happenings which did not require a total education about from nothing.Paul again refers to John the Baptist and his ministry to some disciples who knew about John the Baptist's baptism - " And he [ Paul ] said, Into what then were you baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism. And Paul said, John baptized with a baptism of repentence, telling the people that they should believe into the One coming after him, that is, into Jesus.

​

And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus ..." (Acts 18:3-5)These disciples were deficienct in their understanding of the new covenant. However, they must have understood Paul about John the Baptist's messages. This also firmly links Paul's words with the record of the Gospels. And it proves his audience, though perhaps deficient on doctrinal particulars, were nonetheless the results of Gospel recorded activities.It is quite apparent that Agrippa knew what Paul's gospel of Christ was all about concerning the major aspects of Christ's life, death, and resurrection for Paul says to Agrippa - " .. the king knows about these things, to whom also I speak freely, for I am persuaded that none of these things have escaped his notice; for this has not been done in a corner." (Acts 26:26)The large audience of Hebrew speaking Jews snapped into fury the second Paul mentioned that he had become an apostle to the Gentiles to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 22:17-22).Thier vehement reaction does not suggest no understanding of what he was talking about, but rather disbelief or disapproval.Admittedly, Paul does refer to Jesus speaking to him in a trance (v.17). However, He refers to his participation in the death of Stephen (v.20). And Stephen was killed because of his witnessing to the resurrection and lordship of Jesus.Paul's approval of his stoning links him to his pre-conversion opposition to the facts of the four Gospels. Paul says He told the resurrected Jesus in this trance experience - "And when the blood of Your witness Stephen was being shed, I myself also was standing by approving and keeping the garments of those who did away with him." (v.20)Incorrect. Paul speaks of the body of Jesus being BURIED (1 Cor. 15:4). That involves the earth.And almost the entire discussion of the chapter is to instill hope in a PHYSICAL resurrection of the body BECAUSE Christ PHYSICALLY was resurrected.And it is foolish suggest that the REPEATED use of the word "APPEARED" (v.5,6,7,8) can be understood to mean anything else but an actual and physical visible verification that Jesus was alive.You must be reading the Bible with the most profound mental denial, to the point of obsession with contradicting what is plainly conveyed. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Do you also have this frustration with disagreements among Evolutionists about interpretation of evidences and methods ?Do you think a person should stop cold and consider no more of the Bible because of interpretive disagreements over the use of the word "day" in Genesis 1 ?In your study of science are there some things you kind of put on the backburner, not fully resolved yet perhaps, while you examine other matters ?