Religious quandary

Originally posted by FMF
In am not trying to convince you of anything, sonship, other than the fact that the things you say are not convincing to me. Things like argumentum ad populum [stuff like how come there are so many Christians if what they believe isn't true?] and circular arguments [stuff like the book is divinely inspired because the book tells us that it is divinely inspired] are not going to work.

I don't think you are representing my question fairly. The question concerned the sudden cultural change that took place by the sizable number of Jews in Jerusalem. And coming back with "That's an argument ad populum" is a strawman.

Now failing to deal with that question honestly, you shift to circular reasoning complaints and "stuff like" examples which I haven't mentioned.

Other than "Well Islam was popular too" I don't see you make much attempt at a good alternative explanation at the historical anomaly of sudden rise and flourishing of the church from Jerusalem.

And there are real problems with the answer that the spread of the Gospel was in most cases the same as the spread of Islam. At least in the first several centuries of the conception of each.

Some of the cynicism you show about things like circular reasoning, I think you should show about comparing the character of the Founder of the Christian church with that of the founder of Islam, and the character of Christ's disciples with Mohamed's bloody raiding armies.

That is at least in the first several centuries of the conception of each respective belief. Fast forwarding to the Crusades I don't think works.

In am not trying to convince you of anything, sonship, other than the fact that the things you say are not convincing to me. FMF

I got that. You're not convinced and mighty proud of it.

Do you think that the apostles were convinced that Jesus had risen? Or do you think they absolutely knew that Jesus was dead ?

Stay unconvinced. Just answer me if you think these eyewitnesses knowingly spread a lie and died for a lie they knew was one?

Eyewitnesses: According to Luke 24:48; John 15:27; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:24,32; Acts 10:41; Acts 13:31; 1 Cor. 15:4-9,15; Acts 3:15; Acts 4:33; Acts 5:32; ACts 10:39; 1 John 1:2; Acts 22:15; Acts 23:11; Acts 26:16 .

I don't ask you if you are convinced. I ask you if you think these people were convinced or faking what they preached was real.

Tradition say the original 12 meet these kinds of deaths for their work of testifying:

Peter - crucified
Andrew - crucified
Matthew - pierced with sword
John - died natural ( exiled and supposedly put into boiling oil)
James, the son of Alphaeus - crucified
Philip - crucified
Simon - crucified
Thaddaeus - killed with arrows
James, the brother of Jesus - stoned to death
Thomas - thrust through with a sword
Bartholomew - crucified
James, the son of Zebedee - thrust through with a sword.

Originally posted by sonship
I don't ask you if you are convinced. I ask you if you think these people were convinced or faking what they preached was real.

I don't think you are lying about what you believe either. I think you are convinced that you're right. I don't think you are faking it. Do you feel as if I am accusing you of lying?

Originally posted by sonship
Some of the cynicism you show about things like circular reasoning, I think you should show about comparing the character of the Founder of the Christian church with that of the founder of Islam, and the character of Christ's disciples with Mohamed's bloody raiding armies.

I am neither Christian nor a Muslim. Why "should" I have to explain of justify the character of Mohammed or compare him to a figure from another religion? If you think I am a Muslim and that I have been lying about not being one, just come out and say so,

Originally posted by sonship
I don't think you are representing my question fairly. The question concerned the sudden cultural change that took place by the sizable number of Jews in Jerusalem. And coming back with "That's an argument ad populum" is a strawman.

The "sudden cultural change" = a "sizable number of" people did something = ad populum argument = which is a kind of argument doesn't have any bearing on what comes across to me as the unconvincing claims that you, sonship - not someone in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago - claims that you make to me about supernatural things and the divinity of Jesus and about life after death and so on and so forth.

I don't think you are lying about what you believe either. I think you are convinced that you're right. I don't think you are faking it. Do you feel as if I am accusing you of lying?

I think you dodged the question FMF.
I ask you if you thought the apostles that I enumerated above believed what they were proclaiming.

I ask you about history and you keep wanting to make it just a personal matter for me.

Originally posted by FMF
I am neither Christian nor a Muslim. Why "should" I have to explain of justify the character of Mohammed or compare him to a figure from another religion? If you think I am a Muslim and that I have been lying about not being one, just come out and say so,

I can do the very same thing you do. You want to easily dismiss Jesus and Mohamed to one category that they share. I can just as conveniently say the Holocaust deniers are unconvinced and you are unconvinced, so you both share that category. What's true of Holocaust deniers must also be true of you.

I can just as easily say you being unconvinced of Christ's resurrection is categorically the same as those who are unconvinced that man ever landed on the moon in 1969.

Your asking me if I think you are Moslem is totally irrelevant. Challenging me to "come out and say" this or that is a useless device in this discussion.

Originally posted by FMF
The "sudden cultural change" = a "sizable number of" people did something = ad populum argument = which is a kind of argument doesn't have any bearing on what comes across to me as the unconvincing claims that [b]you, sonship - not someone in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago - claims that you make to me about supernatural things and the divinity of Jesus and about life after death and so on and so forth.[/b]

If you do believe that the apostles believed what they proclaimed and they did not know that it was not true, then you could offer some explanation as to how they got that way.

Emotionally expressing your contempt reminding me of your remaining unconvinced may feel good. But it doesn't tackle the historical question.

So we'll leave it where you wish.

Mohamed and his followers are the same as Jesus and His.
And deniers of the landing on the moon being unconvinced is about the same as you being unconvinced that Jesus did something dramatic to vindicate His teaching.

You make a casual parallel.
I make a casual parallel in response.

Originally posted by sonship

In am not trying to convince you of anything, sonship, other than the fact that the things you say are not convincing to me. FMF

I got that. You're not convinced and mighty proud of it.

Do you think that the apostles were convinced that Jesus had risen? Or do you think they absolutely knew that Jesus was dead ?

Stay unconvinc ...[text shortened]... with a sword
Bartholomew - crucified
James, the son of Zebedee - thrust through with a sword.

How is being boiled in oil death by natural causes? The difficulty with what you've stated is that the version of Christianity we have is St Paul's. Acts 21 indicates that he was preaching a different version of Christianity to the Jewish Christians. There is also the Incident at Antioch which we only have his version of. What we have now is Pauline Christianity and if a different version had become dominant then the narrative in the Bible could have ended up quite different.

Originally posted by sonship
Mohammed and his followers are the same as Jesus and His.

No. They are adherents to different religions. I don't even contend that all followers of Jesus are the same. Both Christians and Muslims believe that God has revealed Himself to them, however, and I am unconvinced by both.

Originally posted by sonship
I can do the very same thing you do. You want to easily dismiss Jesus and Mohamed to one category that they share. I can just as conveniently say the Holocaust deniers are unconvinced and you are unconvinced, so you both share that category. What's true of Holocaust deniers must also be true of you.

You are comparing me being unconvinced by the beliefs in supernatural things - that you personally just so happen to profess - to someone being a Holocaust denier?

Originally posted by sonship
If you do believe that the apostles believed what they proclaimed and they did not know that it was not true, then you could offer some explanation as to how they got that way.

My explanation? Well, the process would be something similar to that which makes my neighbours proclaim that Mohammed was the Last Prophet, that the significance of Jesus was misunderstood and distorted [by Christians, and completely missed altogether by the Jews] and that he will come back at the end times in a different role from the one Christians believe he will have. I can hear all this from my neighbours without calling them - or thinking of them - as "liars". Can you?

Why should the apostles believing what they proclaimed be any more significant to me than you believing what you proclaim?

Originally posted by sonship
I ask you if you thought the apostles that I enumerated above believed what they were proclaiming.

I'm sure they did. I'm sure you do. I'm sure Dasa does. I am sure Jews - who see Jesus as a fraud and impostor - believe what they proclaim. I am sure devout Hindus and Sikhs believe what they proclaim. I have no reason to doubt that the apostles believed what they believed. I am surrounded in my everyday life by Christians who believe the things they believe. I don't think the people around me are lying about what they believe. I don't think you are lying about what you believe.

Do you think that people who proclaim different religious beliefs from you do not believe what they proclaim?

How is being boiled in oil death by natural causes?

I didn't say he was boiled to death. I merely said he was put into boiling oil.

The difficulty with what you've stated is that the version of Christianity we have is St Paul's.

This is rather hypocritical of you up front. Paul never referred to himself as "St. Paul."
So what "version" of Christianity are YOU using to call him "St. Paul" ?

According to First Corinthians Paul taught that all the believers in Christ we "saints." (1 Cor. 1:2) Having gotten that out of the way, what is your problem ?

Acts 21 indicates that he was preaching a different version of Christianity to the Jewish Christians.

You may have to elaborate.Paul went up to Jerusalem to consult with the original apostles James, Peter and John. It was not that he needed to be approved by them. But for the sake of coordination and fellowship Paul did lay before them privately the gospel he was preaching.

Before you continue with this concept please read Galatians chapters 1 & 2. Include these words:

"But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me that I might announce Him as the gospel among the Gentiles, immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood.

Neither did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia and again returned to Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter], and I remained with him fifteen days. (vs.15-18)

Paul goes on to speak about how the three "pillars" of James, Peter, and John gave him the right hand of fellowship to show approval of the Gospel message Paul was preaching. See verse 7.

My time is limited today. But the earliest record we have of the Gospel preached by the apostles are the letters of Paul. These are the earliest Christian documents.

There is also the Incident at Antioch which we only have his version of. What we have now is Pauline Christianity and if a different version had become dominant then the narrative in the Bible could have ended up quite different.

We may have only Paul's account of his scolding Peter at Antioch, if this is what you are referring to. But we have in Second Peter the Apostle Peter recommending Paul to his readers and even referring to his letters as scripture.

If you are referring to Acts 13 when you talk about Antioch, that is Luke's history.

What did the Apostle Paul do or teach that the ascending Christ had NOT told Peter to do in Acts 10 just before Peter went by revelation to house of the Gentile Cornelius? Explain what Paul was doing which was different from what God told Peter he must do.

Explain what Paul was doing which was different from the great commission in Matthew 28:20.

Now, this I will grant you, and which is well known. The Jews in Jerusalem under the leadership of James were kind of dragging their feet. I mean they were reluctant to grasp the radical difference of the new covenant way from the old covenant way. And that did become an issue and the cause of a council of the elders and apostles.

Who "won" out in that dispute? Did the Pharisees who have come into the Christian church win that argument? Or did the 12 apostles including Paul and Barnabas "win" out in that argument? Clearly, the conservative law keeping legalists were in the wrong. And Paul and Barnabas were in the proper presentation of the new testament gospel.

James made the final decision. And thought a little bit compromising, for the far greater part side with Paul and Barnabas - the Gentiles were not to be commanded to be circumcised and become law keepers. They were to live by and in the empower grace of Christ.

Bottom line - the Apostle Paul was 100% faithful to Jesus Christ and to what Jesus had commanded of the 12 apostles. If anyone held them lingering back somewhat, it was James the brother of Jesus (not to be confused with the brother of John - James). But even he eventually came around.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The very message of Christianity is that the world is NOT "untranscendable".

Don't let your own belief color what you perceive the message of Christianity to be, as FMF does.

message or messages?

Sometimes the message is just to put some more money in the hat when it's passed around.

I do have a positive view of christianity and christians, believe it or not, but you must remember even gun totin' rednecks like RJ are christians too.