Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The I wrote a multi-part series using the Book of Acts to show ...

The Book of Acts is Christian propaganda uncorroborated by any non-Christian source and thus proves nothing.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... his sect's teachings were thought by unbelieving Jews to run counter to their Law and the Prophets (i.e. the OT).

How do you know that?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The Book of Acts is Christian propaganda uncorroborated by any non-Christian source and thus proves nothing.

Not entirely true. The mere existence of numerous extra-biblical Christian writings affirms much Acts, especially the spread of Christianity.

Secondly, the Book of Acts was written by an historian (Luke) and is largely corroborated by Old and New Testaments, most especially the Pauline Epistles to various churches founded by Paul on his missionary journeys.

In short, the Book of Acts is in harmony with the rest of scripture.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The mere existence ...

Mere existence? I don't t think so.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... of numerous extra-biblical Christian writings affirms much Acts, especially the spread of Christianity.

Extra-biblical? Does that mean from a non-Christian source? If so, name one.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Mere existence? I don't t think.

.

FTFY.

Extra-biblical? Does that mean from a non-Christian source? If so, name one.

The Church Fathers. They lived and wrote from all over the Roman Empire.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Church Fathers. They lived and wrote from all over the Roman Empire.

I.e., NOT from a non-Christian source.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I.e., NOT from a non-Christian source.

Why do you balk at extra-biblical Christian sources? Were the Church Fathers also mythical figures?

Below are secular sources that speak to the historical Jesus and to Christians in far away places.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/docum...of%20Jesus.htm

[boxcar]

British school district to teach 8-y-o kids that 'all genders' can have periods

https://www.christianpost.com/news/b...e4b10d-2287637

Reading this garbage brings to mind this text:

Prov 11:20
20 The perverse in heart are an abomination to the Lord,
But the blameless in their walk are His delight.
NASB

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why do you balk at extra-biblical Christian sources?

Extra-biblical or not they are still Christian sources promoting an agenda.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Were the Church Fathers also mythical figures?

Some of them were, e.g., Peter and Paul. Exactly who are we talking about?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Below are secular sources that speak to the historical Jesus and to Christians in far away places.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/docum...of%20Jesus.htm

Again with the Gish Gallop. This is ground we've covered before.

I'll cover them one at a time, starting with my next post.

[VigorsTheGrey]

“...Not content with decrying the law of Moses, Paul, by his own confession, preached a gospel of his own. He says positively, in his epistle to the Galatians, "That the gospel which I preach is not after men," and that he had received it by a particular revelation of Jesus. He speaks likewise of his quarrels with the other heads of the sect; but his disciple Luke passes over these very slightly in the Acts, which are much more the Acts of Paul than the Acts of the Apostles.

It appears evident, that he embroiled himself with his [Pg 192]brethren, the partisans of the circumcision, and the founders of the Nazarenes or Ebionites, who had a gospel different from that of Paul, as they combined the law of Jesus with that of Moses.

Irenaeus, Justin, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Theodoret, and Augustine, agree in telling us, that these Ebionites, or converted Jews, regarded Jesus as a "mere man, son of Joseph and Mary, to whom they gave the name of Son of God only on account of his virtues."

From this it is evident, that it was Paul who deified Jesus and abolished Judaism. The Paulites, become the strongest, prevailed over the Ebionites, or disciples of the apostles, and regarded them as heretics. Hence we see that it is the religion of Paul, and not of Jesus, which at present subsists.”

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

“...Not content with decrying the law of Moses, Paul, by his own confession, preached a gospel of his own. He says positively, in his epistle to the Galatians, "That the gospel which I preach is not after men," and that he had received it by a particular revelation of Jesus. He speaks likewise of his quarrels with the other heads of the sect; but his disciple Luke passes over these very slightly in the Acts, which are much more the Acts of Paul than the Acts of the Apostles.

It appears evident, that he embroiled himself with his [Pg 192]brethren, the partisans of the circumcision, and the founders of the Nazarenes or Ebionites, who had a gospel different from that of Paul, as they combined the law of Jesus with that of Moses.

Irenaeus, Justin, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Theodoret, and Augustine, agree in telling us, that these Ebionites, or converted Jews, regarded Jesus as a "mere man, son of Joseph and Mary, to whom they gave the name of Son of God only on account of his virtues."

From this it is evident, that it was Paul who deified Jesus and abolished Judaism. The Paulites, become the strongest, prevailed over the Ebionites, or disciples of the apostles, and regarded them as heretics. Hence we see that it is the religion of Paul, and not of Jesus, which at present subsists.”

"It appears evident..."? Be assured, it is not. Paul did not "embroil" himself "with his [spiritual] brethren". He did confront Peter due to his sin of hypocrisy, which is recorded in Galatians. And he had a difference of opinion with Barnabas over the suitability of John Mark for missionary work (Acts 15:37-41).

However, Paul was in constant battle with many of his brothers, according to the flesh, over the false gospel they were preaching. Paul's biggest enemy were his fellow Jews who either rejected the gospel of the kingdom outright or perverted it. In fact, it was because of the Jews that Paul, as a Roman citizen, "appealed to Caesar' with the hope of getting a fair trial for charges falsely brought against him by Jews.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Extra-biblical or not they are still Christian sources promoting an agenda.

Some of them were, e.g., Peter and Paul. Exactly who are we talking about?

Again with the Gish Gallop. This is ground we've covered before.

I'll cover them one at a time, starting with my next post.

Spare me your drivel.

And, no, I'm not taking about Peter and Paul. Google "early church fathers". You might learn something.

And for your info, everyone has a bias and, therefore, an agenda. Even atheists.

But I do have a question for you: Since you believe the Christian religion was built entirely on a myth (fiction), can you name another ancient religion whose leader was a mythical figure, and that currently has half the number of professed believers that Christianity has today, which is about 2.2 billion?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Spare me your drivel.

And, no, I'm not taking about Peter and Paul. Google "early church fathers". You might learn something.

And for your info, everyone has a bias and, therefore, an agenda. Even atheists.

But I do have a question for you: Since you believe the Christian religion was built entirely on a myth (fiction), can you name another ancient religion whose leader was a mythical figure, and that currently has half the number of professed believers that Christianity has today, which is about 2.2 billion?

Hinduism. One billion self-professed members.

https://www.thoughtco.com/top-hindu-deities-1770309

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Hinduism. One billion self-professed members.

https://www.thoughtco.com/top-hindu-deities-1770309

Thask,
Would you have any idea on why Hindi people liked to conceive of their deities as multi-limbed beings...for me it is a tad disturbing to see these four-armed critters, it just seems so deformed or unnatural...but i’m sure they view it differently...it may have something to do with omnipotence or something...

[ultracapper]

The majority of all major religions throughout history were forced on people violently, and their staying power was ultimately secured by children doing what their parents do. People's common sense can be be greatly effected by the threat of a visit to the iron maiden.

Edit: And up until the age of discovery, beginning about 525 years ago, Christianity was pretty much a European religion, with some pockets of followers in eastern Africa, making it 3rd or 4th in number of confessed followers. The great conversion of the western hemisphere natives, of which very few were entirely voluntary, really pushed the numbers for Christianity into a majority.