juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The problem is the logic is plain wrong. And I think you know it. I hope so, anyway.
Do I need to explain?
Not the same. All people on the list were treated as human who has some connection to a god. Never had any one of them claimed that he/she IS god.
Don't waste your time. Admit my logic is valid.
These men weren't simply considered gods by their people...they claimed to be gods in human form.
Jesus isn't unique in that aspect no matter how much you'd like him to be.
...Don't waste your time. Admit my logic is valid.
Here is your logic, again:Please explain.
No, they did not.
Show me ONE.
I didn't say it started under a later ruler. Where is your evidence that it started under a later ruler?Let me make this perfectly clear to you. I haven't presented any evidence for my claim because there isn't any. There isn't any evidence for your claims either. You are saying that the eyewitness disciples were tortured and that the inquirers demanded that they recant? Your evidence is this "pattern" where the behavior is said to have started decades later under a different ruler?
If they would have done the minimal amounts of sacrifices to satisfy the Roman authorities, they wouldn't have had a problem. Much of the time, this was just at the emperor's altar, toss some salt in, and you're good. There was pressure to do that, the Christians refused....they were prosecuted for not paying respect to Roman gods (done by burning incense...a small gesture of respect) so no amount of recanting their faith would change anything about their situation....let alone save them from execution.
I could be wrong of course...that's just how I remember reading it.
Is he wrong? Do we need to justify the claim that the Romans allowed worship of non-Roman gods on condition that one also honored Roman gods?
Roman aggression against the church ebbed and flowed, if the same pressure that happened under Domitian happened in the first century, we might not have the letters. If we take a broader look at dictatorial regimes that persecuted Christianity though, the Soviets did their share of infiltrating churches before closing them down.And why would the Romans allow all of this if they were so intent on stamping out Christianity? Give the letter to the trusted individual and follow him to the church, or else seize him and interrogate him. Will you please at least casually scrutinize your own position before positing claims like this?
So your conclusion after looking at all of the evidence is that Rome so badly wanted to end Christianity that they arrested disciples and tortured them to try to force them to recant, and yet all the while they allowed Paul to write letters to churches to unify doctrine and keep churches from going astray? Are you making a mockery of these forums?
I would think that if the Romans were somehow stupid enough to deliver this mail then they would at least figure out that they can insert forgeries into Paul's writings to subvert the Christian cult to their own liking.
Will you admit that it is less reasonable to make a counter-claim without ANY evidence of any sort than to go by the pattern of history?Will you at least admit that this pattern-based conclusion cannot be factually supported, and that there are no trial documents or transcripts to show that they were given the chance to recant and go free?
Here is your logic, again:
God is able to resurrect.
Jesus says He is God,
So Jesus resurrected.
Not valid. Why?
1. "able to" does not necessarily mean 'does'.
2. "says" does not necessarily mean 'is'.
Note that I am not objecting to your major nor minor premises, as they stand. We can stipulate they are both factual, yet the logic fails to get us to your conclusion.
I didn't say it started under a later ruler. Where is your evidence that it started under a later ruler?
If they would have done the minimal amounts of sacrifices to satisfy the Roman authorities, they wouldn't have had a problem. Much of the time, this was just at the emperor's altar, toss some salt in, and you're good. There was pressure to do that, the Christians refused.
Roman aggression against the church ebbed and flowed, if the same pressure that happened under Domitian happened in the first century, we might not have the letters. If we take a broader look at dictatorial regimes that persecuted Christianity though, the Soviets did their share of infiltrating churches before closing them down.
Will you admit that it is less reasonable to make a counter-claim without ANY evidence of any sort than to go by the pattern of history?
Thanks.Thank you very much. I think you are right. But I have to keep those words in the syllogism.
I would still be valid, only I don't know how to fix the problem and yet keep it simple.
Good thinking.
How aboutThank you very much. I think you are right. But I have to keep those words in the syllogism.
I would still be valid, only I don't know how to fix the problem and yet keep it simple.
Good thinking.
Thanks.
But....
There is no logical proof for the statement "so Jesus resurrected" that doesnt rely on a statement of faith as one of the premises.
How about
-OR-
- God resurrects
- Jesus is God
- Therefore, Jesus resurrects
- God can resurrect
- Jesus is God
- Therefore, Jesus can resurrect
There was no separation of church and state back then. Sacrifice to the right gods, especially the emperor, and you were in the clear. If you didn't do that, then you could rightly expect persecution. Many were given a final chance to do this, many who did not take it died. Some did take it, but I know of no account that says they were killed anyway.With regards to your response to me, it wasn't a religious crime they were being charged with...it was a political crime. Christian defiance made them guilty of some crime that was tantamount to undermining the authority of Roman rule.
I didn't say it started under a later ruler. Where is your evidence that it started under a later ruler?
If they would have done the minimal amounts of sacrifices to satisfy the Roman authorities, they wouldn't have had a problem. Much of the time, this was just at the emperor's altar, toss some salt in, and you're good. There was pressure to do that, the Christians refused.
Roman aggression against the church ebbed and flowed, if the same pressure that happened under Domitian happened in the first century, we might not have the letters. If we take a broader look at dictatorial regimes that persecuted Christianity though, the Soviets did their share of infiltrating churches before closing them down.
Will you admit that it is less reasonable to make a counter-claim without ANY evidence of any sort than to go by the pattern of history?
I cant really be bothered to read through 7 pages so not sure if this has been said, but the disciples and martyrs were not suddenly arrested and executed for preaching the gospel without any forewarning. Many of them had been repeatedly imprisoned and beaten for preaching it. They knew exactly what the consequences of their preaching would be yet they continued regardless.
Take St Paul for example, he was stoned, given hundreds of lashes and imprisoned numerous times for preaching the Gospel. He had ample opportunity to just pack it all in when he had almost been flogged to death numerous times, yet he still went on and eventually was executed.
And the disciples knew exactly what happened to Jesus himself for preaching the truth, he was crucified.
Honestly they were under no delusions about where their efforts would land them. Whether they may or may not have been spared their lives at the last moment for proclaiming it was all lies is irrelevant, they had ample opportunity over the years to stop and live a quiet life free of imprisonment and torture but they didn't.
It seems to be uncontested that Christian persecution resulted not from their preaching of the gospel but rather because they refused to honor Roman deities.
Firstly that's just untrue. Paul was persecuted by the Jews many times, why would Jews care about honoring Roman gods?
Secondly, so what? Even if it was true, it just further demonstrates that they believed in what they preached by refusing to honor other deities.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?