Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"All men will hate you because of me" - something any cult leader could say?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Fascinating. What evidence leads you to posit this?
    If one considers the contemporary politico-religious and social situation it cannot be entirely ruled out.
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      This doesn't really say what to do when faced with persecution; all it establishes is that it is permissible, if tactically advantageous, to conceal one's faith. This is in stark contrast to Christianity, which teaches that one should stand strong in one's faith regardless of persecution.
      Those passages, along with others and the Sahih Hadith are what the doctrine of taqiyya is built around. Despite the Q'uran claiming to be perfectly clear you don't get a lot of the meaning without checking a Tafsir and the Hadith that concern the same topic.

      Sahih Muslim 6303 which speaks of some of the circumstances in which lying is permitted in Islam.

      Sahih al-Bukhari 4037 is a long one in which Mohammed allowed lying in order to kill an opponent of Islam.

      Due to these instances and others it has been traditionally accepted this is part of the teaching of taqiyya. Especially among Shia Muslims who have more often been in the minority than Sunni. According to At-Tabari Mohammed himself was engaging in taqiyya with his earlier verses when he portrayed Islam as more peaceful* than it really was.

      At-Tabari, Volume VI, p. 95—Abu Talib sent for the Messenger of Allah, and when he came in he said, "Nephew, here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe. They have asked for justice against you, that you should desist from reviling their gods and they will leave you to your god." "Uncle," he said, "shall I not summon them to something which is better for them than their gods?" "What do you summon them to?" he asked. He replied, "I summon them to utter a saying through which the Arabs will submit to them and they will rule over the non-Arabs." Abu Jahl said from among the gathering, "What is it, by your father? We will give you it and ten like it." He answered, "That you should say, 'There is no deity but Allah.'"

      According to Ibn Ishaq the worst the Quraysh had done to Mohammed was grab him by his cloak when he had just threatened to slaughter them.

      I also agree that what Islam teaches with regard to taqiyya is very different from what Christianity teaches.

      *One of the more common examples thrown out is Sura [2:256]

      There shall be no compulsion in religion; the right way has become distinct from the wrong way. Whoever renounces evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handle; which does not break. God is Hearing and Knowing.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        I don't agree with Gondwanaland that Mohammed predicted persecution in advance, but I do agree with him that such a prediction isn't really compelling for any religious leader to make even if it does come true.
        I definitely wouldn't solely base the strength of apologetics on this one issue (because there are far stronger arguments), but I think it's a pretty strong argument, at least proving Jesus wasn't a liar and trying to fool them like we would expect of religious charlatans. We know Jesus initially started out his ministry predicting this because in Mark he makes this prediction when he first commissions his disciples, and we know it's an authentic saying because he uses the self-descriptive Semitic "Son of man" reference. I don't see any other instances of this in any other religion, which makes sense to me. Religious leaders, especially of the fraudulent variety, want to win converts with false promises and they don't want to discourage the converts they already have with warnings of persecution.
        "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

          That really wasn't the point of this thread. I mentioned elsewhere that Christians facing persecution is not surprising because Jesus promised it would happen. Gond suggested that such predictions are common among religious leaders, and therefore, Jesus being accurate on this point is trivial. I was curious if it was true that other religious leaders have made similar predictions and asked Gond if he had any support for his assertion. Apparently he doesn't. The best he has been able to do is point to Islam which has a doctrine that was established as a response to persecution rather than being a prediction.
          I recall Jim Jones and David Koresh claiming they and their followers were being persecuted, but in both cases it was after the "persecution" had already begun (and in the case of Koresh the persecution was arguably real).

          My point in this thread is that Jesus said it first - and it came true. If I was starting a cult today and I wanted to give it legitimate trappings, especially in the western hemisphere, I would copy elements of Christianity. Like what Joseph Smith did when he ignorantly claimed his "tablets" were written by God - in King James English. But the cult leaders also need to be careful with their predictions, lest they end up like the Millerites and the disciples wander away.

          Anyway, in the case of Jesus - from a strictly secular viewpoint - being first is significant. Like Darwin's evolution or Einstein's relativity, we can look backwards and say "Oh, how obvious." But until someone says it first, it is not obvious.

          Comment


          • #65
            But ... but I thought God wrote the Bible in King James English and that the Jews and early Christians had to translate it into Hebrew and Greek so that they could understand it. That's what I was told in church years ago.
            When I Survey....

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              If one considers the contemporary politico-religious and social situation it cannot be entirely ruled out.
              "Cannot be entirely ruled out" and "not improbable" express widely divergent levels of possibility. In any case, it would seem that their reviling of Jesus and the fundamental incompatibility of their actions with Jesus' teachings make it infinitesimally unlikely.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by seanD View Post

                I definitely wouldn't solely base the strength of apologetics on this one issue (because there are far stronger arguments), but I think it's a pretty strong argument, at least proving Jesus wasn't a liar and trying to fool them like we would expect of religious charlatans. We know Jesus initially started out his ministry predicting this because in Mark he makes this prediction when he first commissions his disciples, and we know it's an authentic saying because he uses the self-descriptive Semitic "Son of man" reference. I don't see any other instances of this in any other religion, which makes sense to me. Religious leaders, especially of the fraudulent variety, want to win converts with false promises and they don't want to discourage the converts they already have with warnings of persecution.
                My bad. That was actually the gospel of Matthew, not Mark.
                "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  "Cannot be entirely ruled out" and "not improbable" express widely divergent levels of possibility. In any case, it would seem that their reviling of Jesus and the fundamental incompatibility of their actions with Jesus' teachings make it infinitesimally unlikely.
                  Given that Jesus of Nazareth was executed for sedition it would therefore not be unreasonable that two of his associates were executed with him. Nor is it likely we shall ever find an attested contemporary historical account of what exactly took place.

                  However, given the contemporary politico-religious and social situation in the province in the early first century CE a more "direct " attitude would certainly not be unknown or unlikely. Nor was he either the first or last Messianic claimant.

                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Who were the λῃστάς λῃσταί [Mark 15.27] [Matthew 27.38] crucified with him? It is not improbable that they were members of his own group.
                    First the text does not say they were members of Jesus' own group. The text simply says 2 thief's in both passages. You seem to read into the text. Also we see one accepting Jesus and the other did not accept him Luke 23:39-43. Not even the Greek implies your claim https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexi...27/kjv/tr/0-1/

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by ReformedApologist View Post

                      First the text does not say they were members of Jesus' own group.
                      Why would they? You forget that these texts are apologetic and written after 70 CE.


                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Why would they? You forget that these texts are apologetic and written after 70 CE.

                        Again you make the assumption they are his followers but you provide no evidence. All you have is assertion, and then try and use the Greek to prove your point to which fails miserably.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Also since someone brought up Joseph Smith, one problem with that claim is that Mormonism had already built on many previous Christian principles that was already well known in early America. In addition during the early church they were looked at as Seditious to the Roman Empire, they refused to worship the emperor alongside Jesus Christ. In contrast to Mormonism you really don't see any of those factors in play. So again comparing Apples to Oranges.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by ReformedApologist View Post

                            Again you make the assumption they are his followers but you provide no evidence. All you have is assertion, and then try and use the Greek to prove your point to which fails miserably.
                            I am not emphatically stating the two others crucified were members of his own group. The term λῃστής means a bandit or robber and if you read the Greek you will find that at Matthew 26.55 that word is put into the mouth of Jesus:

                            ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς ὄχλοις ὡς ἐ πὶ λῃστὴν ἐξήλθατε μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων συλλαβεῖν με καθ’ ἡμέραν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἐκαθεζόμην διδάσκων καὶ οὐκ ἐκρατήσατέ με

                            I am therefore merely offering an opinion that, premised on the known historical situation prevailing at this time in Judaea [and not the tendentious writings of the four canonical gospels] that my suggestion cannot be entirely ruled out.

                            We know that claiming, being suspected of claiming, or being acclaimed as, the Jewish Messiah was a capital offence under Roman law in Judaea at this period.

                            The gospels tell us that Jesus made an entry into Jerusalem displaying his role as the prospective King of the Jews and the coming ruler of God’s people as prophesied in Zecharariah 9.9. The gospels also tell us that Jesus was accompanied in this by a a following and that his symbolic entry was recognised by the local people.

                            All all this [so the gospels tell us] occurred on the eve of the Passover when the population of Jerusalem would have been greatly increased [doubled if not more] by Jewish pilgrims coming in from the surrounding region; and thereby substantially increasing existing tensions and the possibility of trouble breaking out. Hence at Jewish festivals the Praefectus came to Jerusalem from his headquarters at Caesarea Maritima and brought with him additional military forces to supplement the permanent garrison in the Antonia.

                            Mark also mentions an uprising στάσει [15.7]. Now we cannot assume that the uprising mentioned by Mark is directly connected with Jesus of Nazareth but once again we cannot absolutely dismiss it either..
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                              Given that Jesus of Nazareth was executed for sedition it would therefore not be unreasonable that two of his associates were executed with him. Nor is it likely we shall ever find an attested contemporary historical account of what exactly took place.
                              Yet the NT accounts are wholly silent as to the possibility. Given the centrality of Jesus' crucifixion to the NT, it beggars belief that the two people who died with him would remain anonymous if they were in any way associated with him. From the beginning, those who were executed for their association with Jesus were held in highest esteem and celebrated.

                              However, given the contemporary politico-religious and social situation in the province in the early first century CE a more "direct " attitude would certainly not be unknown or unlikely. Nor was he either the first or last Messianic claimant.
                              That he was the neither the first nor last Messianic claimant would make their association with him LESS likely; Messianic claimants would have been rivals, with competing groups of associates. Further, banditry was notorious in the area in contemporary historical accounts, and bandits may or may not have had any connection with a Messianic claimant (see generally here and more particularly here).
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Yet the NT accounts are wholly silent as to the possibility.
                                The gospels are early Christian apologetic.

                                We do not know the real background to the actual events. And given the events of 66-70 CE, if the real man had been more "direct" in his actions it is hardly likely that these tendentious Christian writings would acknowledge that fact.

                                After The First Jewish War anything with known Jewish antecedents was regarded with suspicion and deep hostility. Hence the portrayal of Jesus in the Passion narratives where he is shown as being pacific and the blame for his death is shifted on to the Jews and away from the Romans along with the caricature figure of Pilate with which we are presented in those texts.

                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Given the centrality of Jesus' crucifixion to the NT, it beggars belief that the two people who died with him would remain anonymous if they were in any way associated with him. From the beginning, those who were executed for their association with Jesus were held in highest esteem and celebrated.
                                That comes later and sometime after 70 CE with Acts. I would also point out that in some of Paul's authentic letters he shows a marked antagonism towards those men who had known the real Jesus.

                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                That he was the neither the first nor last Messianic claimant would make their association with him LESS likely; Messianic claimants would have been rivals, with competing groups of associates.
                                Do you know anything of the contemporary eschatological beliefs?

                                Your comments are reminiscent of the remark made by the character of Arthur played by John Cleese in the The Life of Brian when Brian insists he is not the Messiah:

                                Arthur: "I say you are, Lord, and I should know I've followed a few"!

                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Further, banditry was notorious in the area in contemporary historical accounts, and bandits may or may not have had any connection with a Messianic claimant
                                And who were some of these so-called "bandits"?

                                You should read Richard A Horsley's book Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder as well as his book written with John S. Hanson Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, or see if you can find Horsley's 1979 paper "The Sicarii: Ancient Jewish "Terrorists". You need to remember the old adage that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter!



                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by tabibito, 09-14-2021, 05:15 AM
                                23 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by seer, 08-30-2021, 09:03 AM
                                183 responses
                                1,116 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, 08-30-2021, 07:35 AM
                                0 responses
                                15 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, 08-28-2021, 05:41 PM
                                5 responses
                                51 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Machinist  
                                Started by MehdiR, 08-25-2021, 01:44 PM
                                9 responses
                                122 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Bill the Cat  
                                Working...
                                X