6/18/2008                                                                                       View Comments

Debunking Christian Apologetics: Fanaticism "Proof"

By John L Armstrong



Does the alleged fanaticism in the face of the alleged persecution of the alleged disciples and apostles prove the validity of Christian belief?

If so, does it also prove a variety of other cults and religions who's followers and leaders demonstrated the exact same fanaticism?

13 comments:

David said...

What does it mean to be subject to authority? According to Romans 13 it appears that people are to do good because those who do evil are punished. What is good? Starting in verse 5 it says, “Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

Then Paul goes on to talk about love. They could honor the Roman authority without being like them. Jesus told the people to listen to what the Pharisees said but also not to be like them because they don't even follow what they teach.

The Romans didn't always persecute the Way. In fact it was some Jews who kept following Paul around that gave him trouble. Off the top of my head I can recall that it was Nero who killed Christians. But history reports that he wasn't playing with a full deck.

I am not sure that I would link Constantine to the first century Christian's. He was Holy Roman Emperor in the early 300's. 300 years is a lot of time. How much has changed in the USA in the last 300 years?

I don't really care what Hollywood says about Christian's. Actors are actors and Christians are Christians.

Anybody care to inform what the Book of Mormon teaches? Thanks.

Stephen_Richard_Webb said...

Dave said: The Romans didn't always persecute the Way. In fact it was some Jews who kept following Paul around that gave him trouble.

-Those jews that gave Paul trouble, were actually the real jewish apostles - i.e. James, Peter - and Peter, to a great degree as is proposed in the new testament seems to be a part fiction character invented by Paul in order to give his doctrine credence. You REALLY should read 'Myth Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity' By Hyam Maccoby. Its a great scholarly work, its deep, informative and provides quite a bit of evidence, both persuasive and actual.

Stephen_Richard_Webb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

What? I didn't quite understand. Are you saying that James, Peter- and Peter (were there two Peters??) were causing Paul problems? I have to disagree. In 2 Peter 3:15 Peter calls Paul his dear brother. That doesn't sound like somebody who is talking about an enemy, right? Why would James cause Paul problems? They were both followers of Jesus. They were on the same side. There are plenty of scholarly works that Christian's have written so whom are we to believe? I think that is the question.

Stephen_Richard_Webb said...

No, there are not two peters, I was indicating that Peter as is presented in the new testamnet is actually a part-fictional account.

And there is quite a bit of research that indicates James and Paul did not get along. Paul assumes that his mission is the most important and even considered those who still adhered to the traditional jewish customs to be inferior [i.e. the ones that still held that circumcision was part of the eternal convenant of God, as well as those who still followed the dietary laws - all of these things Paul shoves aside in his attempts to gain gentile followers. James, being the leader of the early church adhered to the teachings of Y'shua, and in that is adherence to the Law as it is given in the Torah. Would it really make sense for one that you believe to be God to lay down laws, and then command his TRUE disciples to preach something different? On that basis alone, I proclaim Paul to be the false teacher and profit that Y'shua warned about - and since Pauls fingerprints are undoubtedly all over the NT, the NT needs to be anylized with the utmost scrutiny concerning statements made - especially those by made by Paul] Read the book that I recommeded, its really good.

webmdave said...

David,

It is highly unlikely that 2nd Peter was written by Peter.

From Wikipedia: "Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support. In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15-16), his implication that the Apostlic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2)."

To that synopsis I'd add that it seems odd to me to have Peter call Paul's letters "scripture." Paul was writing letters to his converts; nowhere does he imply that he's crafting the inerrant word of God.

And anyone reading Galations can nearly feel the competition between Paul and all the rest of the original apostles. Of course we only have Paul's side of things, and since nearly the entire Christian religion is based off of Paul's writings, Christians just assume that James (Jesus' own brother) and Peter (who purportedly walked and talked with a living, breathing Jesus) were wrong. Paul, with his mystical experiences, argues that his understanding of things is superior to theirs.

History is written by the victors. The original Jesus cult died out in the First Century. Paul's version survived.

eel_shepherd said...

David asked:
"...Anybody care to inform what the Book of Mormon teaches?..."

It doesn't actually teach anything. Neither does the bible.

boomSLANG said...

David Knapp...There are plenty of scholarly works that Christian's have written so whom are we to believe?

Good grief, there are plenty of scholarly-written books on many subjects, and as you know - or should know - many support faiths and systems of belief other than Christianity.

So, to answer your question, believe what you want to believe. On the other hand, if you feel obligated to tout what you believe as Universal Truth, be prepared to offer something other than revealed knowledge - "scholarly", or not - as evidence, especially where feats of the supernatural are purported.

'Hope this helps answer your question.

boomSLANG said...

::chirp, chirp, chirp::

Stephen_Richard_Webb said...

In the last few seconds, did I hear the author of the video say 'May Gods gift of reason light our way', or am I just crazy? Very nice presentation by the way. Keep up the good work!

webmdave said...

The creator of the video is a deist.

boomSLANG said...

In the last few seconds, did I hear the author of the video say 'May Gods gift of reason light our way', or am I just crazy?

I heard that, too. I wrote it off as said tongue in cheek, or the fact that he is a Deist, of some sort.

Stephen_Richard_Webb said...

Awesome. I'm not a deist, but its always good to hear other perspectives from people who DON'T try to cram 'truth' down your throat [while stealing from the tithe plate, abusing little kids, or misappropriating chruch funds]...