I am not Catholic

[BlessedBe13]

Fidelis:

If this were the case, the Jewish authorites would not have condemned him for blasphemy, for saying he was equal to God.

From what I learned in Church and school and to some extent from my parents, they were mostly “angry” with him teaching things other than what was already taught, drawing people away from the traditional Jewish religion at the time, etc. They could easily have taken the statement “Son of God” out of context and twisted it around to make it easier to persecute him. Anyone could easily do that to justify persecution, hatred, violence, etc. towards someone else

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Fidelis:

We are not talking about Constantine and Charlemagne; we are talking about his first followers, the ones who saw him, wrote the Gospels, and were martyred for him.

You said Islam spread by the sword and not because of any intrinsic merit, so I countered that Christianity did the same.

As stated before, what is being discussed is your basis (or lack of same) for believing what you do about Jesus. My basis is well known, yours is unknown.

Your basis is a book you believe is true because the book says so. My basis is historical experience (patterns that repeat themselves).

Even if they were looked upon as both silly and a threat, this alleged silliness is not what they were martyred for.

So any cause that people are martyred for is not silly? That would mean putting the Branch Davidians on the same pedestal as Catholicism.

Which they are not. Why aren’t they? Because theoretical Elvisism as you imagine it does not and cannot exist, exactly because of the reasons you say it could: there is no comparison between the claims of Christianity and your theoretical Elvis sect.

You … are … an impatient one. Less than 30 years have passed since Elvis’s death.

In our age of massive and instant communication, “Elvisism,” if it were going to occur at all would have, if anything, been a full blown religion long ago. It has not for reasons stated above.

Unsupported assertion. May be common sense, but that’s no guarantee. No guarantee that our communications technology could speed up religious evolution.

 

[BlessedBe13]

Imprimartin:
A) Yes, but the people who heard what he said didn’t take it like that. they took it as “I am God and you are not.” Which is why they planned to kill him. If they had misunderstood Jesus, he would’ve corrected them. As I said in another post, I believe that the Jewish authorities also were against him because some of his teachings were other than traditional Jewish religion at that time and was drawing away from that religion. So, if you already, “don’t like” someone, and you misinterpret something they say (purposefully or unpurposefully), whether they correct you or not that original thought is still in your mind and isn’t going to change, especially if you already didn’t like that person.

Imprimartin:

You are basically denying the the gospel accounts as plain old historical documents. How do you respond to the secular, non-christian historians who claim that history went down the way the gospels say it went down?

I do believe that the Bible has some historical accuracy in it. I don’t deny that. However, the people who wrote the Bible also had an agenda - to promote their new religion. I have hear historians say that there are historical accuracies in the Bible, that many of those people did exist, that many of those things happened. But, I have never heard them say that since parts of the Bible are historically accurate, that the entire thing is true - i.e. Jesus is god, etc.

Imprimartin:

The reasons why christians gave their lives back then was because someone told them, “Deny what you claim or die”. There’s a saying which says, “No one dies for what they believe to be a lie.” If they responded, “Well then, kill me”, then we must assume that it is VERY probable that what they claimed was true.

All you can really assume from that is that THEY believed it was true. That doesn’t make it true.

 

[BlessedBe13]

Imprimartin:

And being recent has little to do with it. If people in the future know Elvis as we know him, he will look just as silly 500 years from now. One need only to look at the footage we have of him–ALL of the footage–every last bit. He speaks for himself.

The fact that he looks silly is your own opinion. I’m not an Elvis fan myself, but there are people that take him a lot more seriously and to them, he’s not silly, some might even think that he is god-like.

 

[BlessedBe13]

Fidelis:

As stated before, what is being discussed is your basis (or lack of same) for believing what you do about Jesus. My basis is well known, yours is unknown.

Your basis is well-known among Christians and it is well known among non-Christians that this is what Christians believe.

However it is also a well-known argument, that Jesus was an ordinary man, and not a god.

As Heathen_Dawn said. The claim that Jesus was an ordinary man, is a much more ordinary and logical argument rather than the argument that he was/is god.

 

[Fidelis]

Heathen Dawn:

You said Islam spread by the sword and not because of any intrinsic merit, so I countered that Christianity did the same.

And – again-- we were talking about his first followers, the ones who saw him, wrote the Gospels, and were martyred for him.

Your basis is a book you believe is true because the book says so. My basis is historical experience (patterns that repeat themselves).

That’s not a basis, it’s a position. To invoke “historical experience” as a definitive evidence in any one case (in this case, what you believe about Christ), you would have to show a one to one correspondence, not a theoretical similarity. Not all history develops or unfolds in the same manner.

So any cause that people are martyred for is not silly? That would mean putting the Branch Davidians on the same pedestal as Catholicism.

No, I granted you that if Christ’s first followers were both silly and a threat, their alleged silliness is not what they were martyred for.

Unsupported assertion. May be common sense, but that’s no guarantee. No guarantee that our communications technology could speed up religious evolution.

Not a guarantee, of course (just like there is no guarantee for “historical experience”), but as an example, look at today’s popular televangelists – how fast has their following grown because of their savvy use of media?

BlessedBe13:

As Heathen_Dawn said. The claim that Jesus was an ordinary man, is a much more ordinary and logical argument rather than the argument that he was/is god.

As stated before in my reply to her, what is being discussed is her (and I presume your) basis (or lack of same) for believing what you do about Jesus. My basis is well known, yours is (still) unknown.

 

[Imprimartin]

Heathen Dawn:

But we are less than 30 years after his death and, already, people imagine him differently than people knew him when he was alive. Could it, perhaps, have happened to Jesus as well?

People may imagine Elvis differently but not in the way that you might wish. His namesake is going in the opposite direction. If anyone needs to refresh their image of Elvis, they only need to pop in a video tape.

We can’t do that with Jesus. We have only the historical accounts and Jesus has increased as it has. You can’t compare Jesus with Elvis simply because the events will not play out the same. I can’t predict the future but I think we can easily surmise where the legend of Elvis is going: to where all other historical popular people go --obscurity.

Martin

 

[Imprimartin]

BlessedBe13:

As I said in another post, I believe that the Jewish authorities also were against him because some of his teachings were other than traditional Jewish religion at that time and was drawing away from that religion. So, if you already, “don’t like” someone, and you misinterpret something they say (purposefully or unpurposefully), whether they correct you or not that original thought is still in your mind and isn’t going to change, especially if you already didn’t like that person.

I read that other post. And there is a problem with the “Jesus simply made the jews mad” theory. That is that the Jews, more specificially the pharisees, were (and still admittedly are) VERY legalistic. Which means that they can’t do certain things unless it’s in the “rules”. They couldn’t just kill someone without one of five very specific reasons. “Drawing people away from Judaism” or “teaching other traditions” or “teaching things other than was already taught” does not fit the bill. Jesus didn’t come close to meeting any of those five rules except blasphemy: Calling himself God. That’s the rule that he broke (if he wasn’t God). The pharisees said that he broke that exact rule. The Roman’s thought it was a stupid rule to be killed for and tried to get out of it. Shoot! If I were a jew and didn’t believe him, I would have him killed because it’s in “the rules”.

BlessedBe:

I do believe that the Bible has some historical accuracy in it. I don’t deny that. However, the people who wrote the Bible also had an agenda - to promote their new religion. I have hear historians say that there are historical accuracies in the Bible, that many of those people did exist, that many of those things happened. But, I have never heard them say that since parts of the Bible are historically accurate, that the entire thing is true - i.e. Jesus is god, etc.

This is a Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy. You are not making efforts to determine whether the author’s message is true, rather you are pushing all that aside and bringing up an entirely different topic such as their motive. More info here: datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
Secondly, the scholars don’t have to say, “Jesus is God”. They only have to say “Jesus said that He was God.”

BlessedBe:

All you can really assume from that is that THEY believed it was true. That doesn’t make it true.

Yes, that’s right. Which by itself is of little consequense. When you throw in thier martyrdom, their belief takes on a huge weight of truth.

Martin

 

[Imprimartin]

BlessedBe13:

The fact that he looks silly is your own opinion. I’m not an Elvis fan myself, but there are people that take him a lot more seriously and to them, he’s not silly, some might even think that he is god-like.

Some might think he’s God-like? Do you have proof for that? Pehaps you could find a website somewhere. Would they endure extreme amounts of torture and die if someone with authority said, “Recant or die”? I don’t think so. Elvis can’t offer them anything worth dying for.

There maybe people who “take him more seriously” than you or I but I think (no, I’m quite sure) that they would say that Elvis still has a long way before he reaches Jesus status. But I’m equally sure that any serious Elvis devotion will die with the Elvis lovers. Elvis fandom is a dying breed. One by one. As the years march by, you will see. The behavior of the populous is not same between Jesus and Elvis.

Martin

 

[BlessedBe13]

Imprimartin:

Some might think he’s God-like? Do you have proof for that? Pehaps you could find a website somewhere. Would they endure extreme amounts of torture and die if someone with authority said, “Recant or die”? I don’t think so. Elvis can’t offer them anything worth dying for.

Elvis Religion/Cult, the “Elvites” uncoveror.com/elvites.htm

The article mentions that it might only be a way to get money out of people - but there are also lots of people that think the Catholic Church does the same.

Granted, after looking at the site this article came from, I’d take it with a grain of salt, but this does sound like something that wouldn’t surprise me.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Fidelis:

That’s not a basis, it’s a position. To invoke “historical experience” as a definitive evidence in any one case (in this case, what you believe about Christ), you would have to show a one to one correspondence, not a theoretical similarity. Not all history develops or unfolds in the same manner.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe (Menachem Mendel Schneorson) is one untheoretical example I can think of.

No, I granted you that if Christ’s first followers were both silly and a threat, their alleged silliness is not what they were martyred for.

Of course they didn’t martyr themselves for something they believed was silly. No-one does. But then this is people’s beliefs. What about the reality? If you say the first Christians martyred themselves for Jesus therefore there is a divine origin behind the whole saga, then that’s a fallacy. Yes, the Argument from Martyrdom is a fallacy.

Imprimartin:

People may imagine Elvis differently but not in the way that you might wish. His namesake is going in the opposite direction.

No.

If anyone needs to refresh their image of Elvis, they only need to pop in a video tape.

But that isn’t helping.

We can’t do that with Jesus.

All the more reason to assume the picture of Jesus has deviated considerably from the primal reality.

I can’t predict the future but I think we can easily surmise where the legend of Elvis is going: to where all other historical popular people go --obscurity.

That’s divination and the Bible forbids it. But seriously, if all other historical popular people go to obscurity, why didn’t Jesus? Or why didn’t Muhammad?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Heathen Dawn:

Of course they didn’t martyr themselves for something they believed was silly. No-one does. But then this is people’s beliefs. What about the reality? If you say the first Christians martyred themselves for Jesus therefore there is a divine origin behind the whole saga, then that’s a fallacy. Yes, the Argument from Martyrdom is a fallacy.

Heathen Dawn;

Your response is attacking a “straw man” instead of the point being made. If many of the early disciples who were reportedly witnesses to the ministry of Jesus, and saw the results of his ministry - i.e. the miracles, the cures, his resurrection and ascension to Heaven - believed them so strongly that they were willing to die rather than deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, that fact supports the conclusion that Jesus’ divine nature was manifested. It is an indirect proof of Christ’s divinity. I don’t think anyone was arguing that if someone is willing to die for a belief, then the belief must be true. The argument is that many of the early martyrs must have seen something very powerful and must have been VERY convinced of the divinity of Jesus to have chosen death over denouncement of their faith.

Why do you completely discount the testimony of those who witnessed Jesus’ ministry and were deeply and sincerely convinced of His divinity? And don’t say it was because they “had an agenda.” That’s not a valid objection. Saul had an agenda that included the persecution of Christians until the time of his conversion. And I’m sure that no rational person’s agenda includes martyrdom.

One last question. If you don’t think these early martyrs were witnesses to true miracles, what do you think they saw that convinced them to believe a gospel that was at odds with everything they were brought up to believe? Do you really think that so many people living in such a cynical time would be so moved by cheap parlor tricks or smoke and mirrors?

-Peace.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Robert in SD:

The argument is that many of the early martyrs must have seen something very powerful and must have been VERY convinced of the divinity of Jesus to have chosen death over denouncement of their faith.

So they were convinced of the divinity of Jesus. That doesn’t mean that the divinity of Jesus is really the cause. People can be convinced to believe almost anything.

Why do you completely discount the testimony of those who witnessed Jesus’ ministry and were deeply and sincerely convinced of His divinity?

For the same reason you discount the testimony of those who witness the miracles of their guru and are deeply and sincerely convinced of his divinity.

And I’m sure that no rational person’s agenda includes martyrdom.

Correct, but I’m not so steeped in the rationalistic fallacy as to assume all people are rational.

If you don’t think these early martyrs were witnesses to true miracles, what do you think they saw that convinced them to believe a gospel that was at odds with everything they were brought up to believe?

I’m not discounting true miracles. But they don’t prove Jesus is God. Any man temporarily endowed with a God’s awesome abilities can perform miracles. Jesus may have been a Godsson, the son of Yahweh, a demigod, or may have been an ordinary person whom Yahweh chose to grant miraculous abilities. In the end, my chief dispute with Christians, with all Christians, is over the status of Yahweh: you say He is the Creator-God of the universe and the only God, and I say He did not create the universe, and He is just one God among many Gods and Goddesses.

Do you really think that so many people living in such a cynical time would be so moved by cheap parlor tricks or smoke and mirrors?

Cynical time?! What are you talking about? Our times are cynical; people of antiquity were more likely to have childlike faith. And yet even in our cynical time, people like David Koresh manage to drag a group of faithful followers to mass suicide. How much more so then!

 

[Fidelis]

Heathen Dawn:

The Lubavitcher Rebbe (Menachem Mendel Schneorson) is one untheoretical example I can think of.

That is one example. You said you were convinced by patterns. Out of the multitudes of movements that have arisen in the world, one or two isolated instances does not a pattern make (not to mention the fact that any sociological pattern can be broken.

Of course they didn’t martyr themselves for something they believed was silly. No-one does. But then this is people’s beliefs. What about the reality? If you say the first Christians martyred themselves for Jesus therefore there is a divine origin behind the whole saga, then that’s a fallacy. Yes, the Argument from Martyrdom is a fallacy.

The argument from martyrdom isn’t *the * arguement, but only one argument that I have offered.

I didn’t say they died for something that was silly. I said that if they were percieved of as silly by their persecutors, this isn’t the reason they were martyred–it was because they believed Jesus was God. And that is what we are talking about here.

 

[Mindy_Mae]

dhgray:

How many are just visiting and/or looking for more information?

I am not Catholic and probably never will be. I have osome major issues with what are referred to as the “non-negotiables” that just can’t be resolved. I’m here just looking for more information though because 80% of the student body and faculty where I attend university are Catholic.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Fidelis:

That is one example. You said you were convinced by patterns. Out of the multitudes of movements that have arisen in the world, one or two isolated instances does not a pattern make

Those two examples have the benefit of the documentation available in our modern times. There were numerous others in the past, but nearly undocumented.

I said that if they were percieved of as silly by their persecutors, this isn’t the reason they were martyred–it was because they believed Jesus was God. And that is what we are talking about here.

And I said anyone can be convinced to believe almost anything, and getting people to believe a person is God is no great feat.

 

[dhgray]

Mindy Mae:

I have some major issues with what are referred to as the “non-negotiables” that just can’t be resolved.

Well welcome and I hope your questions get answered. What issues do you have?1. Abortion

2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"

BTW, what is your spiritual background?

God Bless You,

DHG

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Heathen Dawn: So they were convinced of the divinity of Jesus. That doesn’t mean that the divinity of Jesus is really the cause. People can be convinced to believe almost anything.

You’re arguing past my question. If hundreds of people who lived contemporaneously with Jesus and his apostles are so convicted of the truth of their position - i.e. the divinity of Jesus - that is some evidence of the divinity of Jesus, even if the counter-argument can be made that there is some mass misperception. I agree that people can be convinced to believe almost anything, including the truth.

Heathen Dawn: For the same reason you discount the testimony of those who witness the miracles of their guru and are deeply and sincerely convinced of his divinity.

But, I would be forced to admit that eye-witness testimony of miracles cannot be dismissed out-of-hand merely because of the faith of the followers of that guru. The same must hold true for christianity and its early adherents, who believed so strongly in the miracles they saw that they were willing to go to their deaths rather than denounce their faith. And very few persons go willingly to their death professing the divinity of their guru - although it happens rarely, and with handfulls of people.

Heathen Dawn: Correct, but I’m not so steeped in the rationalistic fallacy as to assume all people are rational.

I don’t assume that all people are rational. But that’s not my point. My point is that not all people are irrational, and therefore, one cannot dismiss the testimony of the martyrs out-of-hand as the ravings of deceived persons.

Heathen Dawn: I’m not discounting true miracles. But they don’t prove Jesus is God. Any man temporarily endowed with a God’s awesome abilities can perform miracles. Jesus may have been a Godsson, the son of Yahweh, a demigod, or may have been an ordinary person whom Yahweh chose to grant miraculous abilities. In the end, my chief dispute with Christians, with all Christians, is over the status of Yahweh: you say He is the Creator-God of the universe and the only God, and I say He did not create the universe, and He is just one God among many Gods and Goddesses.

But again, that’s not my point. My point is that history does support the conclusion that something far from ordinary occured with respect to the person of Jesus and his ministry. That cannot be discounted as you suggested in your previous post.

Heathen Dawn: Cynical time?! What are you talking about? Our times are cynical; people of antiquity were more likely to have childlike faith. And yet even in our cynical time, people like David Koresh manage to drag a group of faithful followers to mass suicide. How much more so then!

The times were cynical. “Wanna-be” messiahs were popping up all over Judea. Witness Pontius Pilate’s query to Jesus - “What is Truth?” Yes, the times were cynical and it was easier not to be a christian that it was to be a christian. So why did they do it? One explanation is that they believed their faith in a way that few today will have the courage to believe. They were convicted of its truth. That is a powerful evidence to the truth of their beliefs that you must admit is at least some evidence for the divinity of Jesus. I’m not trying to convince you that it is evidence enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is some evidence in favor of the divinity of Jesus.

-Peace.

 

[Lisa_N]

I was surprised at the number of non-Catholics on this board. I entered tentatively as a non-Catholic, wondering how I’d be received. Very nicely I might add! I’ve had some pretty low level questions and they’ve been answered respectfully. The knowledge level on this board is amazing!

As to what drew me to Catholicism, one big factor was the consistency on human life issues. I just couldn’t accept my mainline Protestant church’s approach that the death penalty was wrong and abortion/gay agenda/euthanasia were “private matters” and heaven forbid we make any waves by speaking out. It seemed like they wanted to save the guilty and sacrifice the innocent. Nothing I read in the Bible or from any of the great prophets supported in the slightest degree something like abortion.

The other draw along with that small still voice, was the beauty of the worship. If you’ve attended Protestant churches (other than Episcopalian) they tend to have a lot of “talking heads” and not much worship. I feel I am dedicating that hour to God and I don’t want to spend it hearing announcements about this group or that group and what the youth are doing. Strike me dead for saying so but I get very weary of “children’s time” Anyway long story short I leave Mass feeling uplifted and full of gratitude. I’d leave my Protestant services bored and thinking of what I needed to get at the store on the way home. YAAAWN.

Anyway I love this board and I appreciate the knowlegeable folks sharing their wisdom with us newbies. Thank you!!

Lisa N

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Robert in SD:

If hundreds of people who lived contemporaneously with Jesus and his apostles are so convicted of the truth of their position - i.e. the divinity of Jesus

We don’t know that. Even the earliest gospel, that of Mark, isn’t contemporary with Jesus.

that is some evidence of the divinity of Jesus,

Only in a very superificial level—the level of causing people to examine the question.

I agree that people can be convinced to believe almost anything, including the truth.

That’s right, but I don’t think Christianity can possibly the truth, as it has such a gloomy eschatology, with the majority of humanity ending up in eternal torment, and the minority as eternal zombies praising God all day long.

My point is that not all people are irrational, and therefore, one cannot dismiss the testimony of the martyrs out-of-hand as the ravings of deceived persons.

Martyrs are irrational people par excellence—valuing ideology over basic surivival instinct. Were the 9/11 terrorists (Islamic martyrs) rational people? Of course not.

My point is that history does support the conclusion that something far from ordinary occured with respect to the person of Jesus and his ministry.

Even if so, I’m not going to be a Christian.

The times were cynical.

The would-be messiahs may have been as cynical as David Koresh in our times, but the people weren’t as sceptical as we are.

They were convicted of its truth. That is a powerful evidence to the truth of their beliefs that you must admit is at least some evidence for the divinity of Jesus.

So the first Muslims, complete with martyrs, being convicted of the truth of Islam are at least some evidence for the divine inspiration of the Qur’an?