Best Persuaded Content

• There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me

  RickeyHoltsclaw

  May 9
  @Joeseph ; Why not study and practice discernment as opposed to listening to your fellow demonic atheists who are headed to de-ath in He-ll as you?

  
  

  Deuteronomy 22:28-29 are the ones that deal with rape (verses 25–27). The law has already prescribed the death penalty for that crime. Why would verses 28–29 address rape again and, in so doing, change the penalty? Obviously, different crimes are in view.
  
  2) Exodus 22:16 is a parallel law: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.” No force is involved, only seduction. It’s a case of consensual sex and requires the same penalty as prescribed in Deuteronomy 22: the man pays a fine and marries the girl he slept with.
  
  3) In the wording of Deuteronomy 22:28, the penalty is enforced if “they are discovered.” The fact that both of them are “discovered” indicates the consensual nature of the sexual act. The condition that “they” (plural) are found out makes no sense in the case of rape. Thus, this law covers a consensual tryst. A man who seduces a young woman, sleeps with her, and then expects to avoid all responsibility is thwarted in his plan. God instructs the couple to get married and stay married.
  
  4) There are two distinct Hebrew words used in the same passage. In Deuteronomy 22:25, the word chazaq is translated “rapes.” But in verse 28 is a completely different verb (taphas), translated “seizes” in the ESV and “has intercourse with” in the NLT. The different verbs suggest different behaviors.
  
  Critics of the Bible also point to Numbers 31, in which Moses tells his fighting men that “the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves” (Numbers 31:18 NLT). Critics wrongly assume that the captive women were to be raped. Rape is never mentioned in the passage. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women eventually marry some of the Israelites? Yes, probably. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.

  

• Is Christianity a copy cat religion?

  just_sayin

  May 7

  Factfinder said:

  @just_sayin
  
  Correct, and a person's disbelieve does not alter the evidence either.  One must examine the veracity of the evidence.
  
  What little there is that is true. But you bank everything on what the bible says which isn't evidence. You can appeal to scholarly articles and books stating what's believed, Christian tradition, references to the claims of followers, and legend all you want; but it can never be evidence. A book of a collection of mythical writings does not qualify. We can't even be sure the Apostle Paul even existed since we only have the bible's claim he did ...
  
  

  Biography

  Early life

  The two main sources of information that give access to the earliest segments of Paul's career are the Acts of the Apostles and the autobiographical elements of Paul's letters to the early Christian communities.[41] Paul was likely born between the years of 5 BC and 5 AD.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Available_sources

  
  Which means the bible can't testify to his existence or the creed referenced in "Paul's" writings to the Corinthians. It's just the bible says. Paul, aside from the scriptures isn't mentioned till a century afterwards at the earliest. Using scripture to attest to scripture is never evident of anything but belief. 
  
  

  Sources outside the New Testament that mention Paul include:

  • Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians (late 1st/early 2nd century);
  • Ignatius of Antioch's epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians[45] (early 2nd century);
  • Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians (early 2nd century);
  • Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiae (early 4th century);
  • The apocryphal Acts narrating the life of Paul (Acts of Paul, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Acts of Peter and Paul), the apocryphal epistles attributed to him (the Latin Epistle to the Laodiceans, the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, and the Correspondence of Paul and Seneca) and some apocalyptic texts attributed to him (Apocalypse of Paul and Coptic Apocalypse of Paul). These writings are all later, usually dated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

  
  
  This however is speaking more to the authenticity of the religious claims themselves which this thread isn't really about. It's about how Christianity isn't as unique as people seem to think. As I pointed out with the Sumerians it's not that different. Sure details, settings, and stories are differ but they all share a variety common themes, ideals. The Egyptians had a "King of the Resurrection" long before. Christianity itself draws heavily from Judaism to the point it lays claim to the Tora as part of Christianity (Actually the old testament). Judaism has tales of resurrection and prophets calling on god to bring back the dead and then doing so. 1 Kings 17:17-24 is one instance. So your claim about some presumed event concerning a resurrection being unique to Christianity just isn't so.

  Paul is considered to be a historical figure by historians.  In fact, I can't think of a single credible one who denies his existence.  The claim that we have no evidence for Paul is false.  He wrote almost half the New Testament.  His letters to the churches he either established or visited are written evidence of his existence.  Luke, who accompanied him on his missionary journeys, recorded his 3 missionary trips in the book of Acts.  So we have several of Paul's letters and Luke's account in Acts.  
  
  Clement of Rome, lived from 35 AD to 99 AD.  He met some of the apostles, and knew their apprentices.  So, he would have had access to people who knew Paul.
  
  To believe that Paul was not a historical figure, you would have to believe a mighty big conspiracy theory.  You'd have to believe that all of Paul's letters were faked.  That Luke faked his account, that all of the churches that Paul started lied about who started them, and coordinated with one another over the hundreds and hundreds of miles between them. You would have to believe that all of the early church father's lied about Paul, or that they were all lied to by people who claimed they had met Paul but had not.  That's just too big of a conspiracy for me.  I just don't have that much faith.
  
  Instead, it seems much more likely Paul was a real person, and more importantly to me, that he wrote about Jesus and the resurrection as actual historical events.  
  
  The historical account of Jesus differs greatly from the story of Osiris.  Osiris was either slain or drowned by Seth.  He was cut in 14 pieces, with all but the phallus being buried.  He became the God of the dead.  He remains in the land of the dead and doesn't come back from there.  There was no physical resurrection of Osiris.  That seems like a major difference, since the primary claim of Christianity is that Jesus died and arose from the dead with many witnesses confirming this.  However, nowhere in the myth of Osiris, does he leave the realm of the dead.  As Britanica explains:
  
  

  This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one’s descendants on Earth. 

  Let's contrast this with what Paul said about Jesus:

  I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. 4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles...
   But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13 For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. 15 And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16 And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. 18 In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! 19 And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world.
  20 But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died. - 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, 12-20 NLT

  As you can see, Paul views Jesus and his resurrection as a historical event.  

  

• Is Christianity a copy cat religion?

  just_sayin

  May 6

  21CenturyIconoclast said:

  @just_sayin
  
  ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTES:  "While Christianity shares many beliefs with Judaism which precedes it, Christianity is uniquely rooted in a historical event - the death and resurrection of Jesus.  This event is the catalyst of the faith and the fundamental belief.  It is rare to see religions based on a historical event."
  
  Your notion of Christianity shares many beliefs with Judaism is laughable, because the Christian faith IS JUDAISM! The alleged "historical event" within your JUDEO-Christian bible regarding the death of your serial killer Jesus as god, and his zombie return from his  "tomb nap" 3 days later, only exists in the primitive Bronze and Iron Age JUDEO-Christian bible!
  
  THINK! how can Jesus truly die for your sins, if He remained alive subsequent to His resurrection?!  H-E-L-L-O?!  Dying for only 3 days in the tomb, and coming back to life, is an embarrassment if one wants to use the notion of "Jesus died for your sins" because Jesus remained alive and not dead after his resurrection!  GET IT? Huh?
  
  SO MANY BIBLE FOOLS, SO LITTLE TIME TO SET THEM STRAIGHT!  
  
  
  .

  Christianity shares many beliefs with Judaism, but it sees itself as the second covenant - distinct from the obligations and practices of the past covenant.  I'm sure if you told a Jew that their faith is Christianity, you'd discover that the 2 are different.
  
  God required a sinless sacrifice to shed his blood.  Jesus fulfilled this.  The fact he arose afterward did not mean that the sacrifice called for was not made.  This is not a problem with Christianity, but your understanding of the requirement.
  
  There are many historical witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.  Each account is a witness.  Further, their testimony is supported by the enemies of Jesus who confirm that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate and that the disciples believed that Jesus had been risen.  

  

• Is Christianity a copy cat religion?

  just_sayin

  May 6
  @Factfinder
  
  That you believe is not evidence.
  
  Correct, and a person's disbelieve does not alter the evidence either.  One must examine the veracity of the evidence.
  
  The bible says is not an attestation it's a claim. 1 Corinthians was written over 50 years ce and contains claims not proofs. Not evidence.  https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Letter-of-Paul-to-the-Corinthians
  
  The claim is not that the book of Corinthians was written by 35 AD but that the Christian creed that is stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 was.  1 Corinthians was indeed written in the 50's in Ephesians based on Acts details.
  
  The creed predates the writing of the book though.  See:
  
  

  • The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.]
  • Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]
  • James Dunn (Professor at Durham): “Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul received (126), there is no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis (16.3) (127). He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, ‘I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance (en protois) what I also received (parelabon)’ (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to the Corinthians when they first believed (15.1-2) (128). This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death. [Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003) 854-55.]
  • Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]
  • A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

  
  The bible says isn't evidence.
  
  The Bible is a collection of books.  Each book in the New Testament is a separate and distinct source of information.  Each source must be considered individually.  We see eye witness accounts from Matthew, John, James, and Peter.  We see secondary confirming eye witness accounts from Mark (who may have also been a witness himself), Luke, and Paul.  Luke, records that he wrote what eye witnesses told him.  A historian would not disregard them because the sources were in the Bible, but would examine them individually for their content and merit.
  
  Fabrications often are a large part of testimonials whether they helped the outcome of a tale or not. That women discovered an empty tomb is a biblical account and not evidence.
  
  All four gospels mention women as the first witnesses.  This means that 4 separate sources mention this detail - plus the numerous other early Christian writings.  These sources were written in different places to different audiences.  The detail is significant.  Jewish tradition did not accept a woman's testimony in a court setting.  It would be unlikely for someone to make up a story in that Jewish context and have women as the witnesses, because that issue, would then be used to dismiss the account.  The fact that historians believe Mary Magdalene did live and testify to the resurrection is not seriously disputed.
  
  Persecution of a particular religious sect are not an attestation of the claims of said sect...
  
  True.  Many will die for something they believe in.  But no one dies for a lie they know to be false.  Paul claims that James, Peter, and the disciples confirmed Jesus' resurrection to him.  Luke records Peter preaching about his seeing the resurrected Christ.  It seems odd that Peter would not speak up and say he was wrong or mistaken if he did not believe the resurrection happened.  
  
   The earliest evidence is found in John 21:18–19, which was written about 30 years after Peter’s death. atheist Bart Ehrman, in his book Peter, Paul, & Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend, agrees that Peter is being told he will die as a martyr. Other evidence for Peter’s martyrdom can be found in early church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian and more. The early, consistent and unanimous testimony is that Peter died as a martyr.
  
  To claim there is evidence almost entirely based on tradition is simply false.
  
  Eye witness accounts are not just tradition.  It is obvious that the tomb was empty.  If it weren't then, someone would have produced the body and said 'see, here he is'.  No one in antiquity, died that the tomb was empty.  None of the eye witnesses changed their story.  That seems relevant when you consider the persecution Christians endured under Nero according to non-Christian sources such as Suetonius and Tacitus.  
  
  The transformed lives of the apostles is also evidence of the truth of the resurrection.  It seems unlikely that they would have left their homes and businesses to go and be persecuted for a story they didn't believe.  

  

• Is Christianity a copy cat religion?

  just_sayin

  May 6

  Barnardot said:

  @just_sayin ;I believe there is strong evidence that the claims of Jesus death and resurrection are true.

  You might believe that crap all right but it’s just that your totally deluded and the thing about being deluded is that you don’t know myth from realty and in your case right from wrong which is why you lie so much. The fact is is that there is not one peace of evidence about Jesus and resurrection let a lone strong evidence.

  I believe there is evidence of Jesus' resurrection:
  
  1) There is a very early attestation of the event, no later than 18 months after the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-7).  That's very early attestation for ancient historical events.  
  
  2) Multiple witness accounts - The resurrection is supported by eye witness accounts such as Peter, James, John, Matthew, and secondary evidence from interviews with eye witnesses from Mark, Luke, and Paul.  You also have lots of early Christian witnesses who confirm that the initial witnesses did in fact claim that they saw the physical resurrection of Jesus.
  
  3) The historical documents contain embarrassing details which fabricated stories would not have included - such as Jesus' crucifixion and the fact that women were the first witnesses of the resurrection.  This gives the testimonies a ring of truth because these kinds of embarrassing details would not have been beneficial to the account.
  
  4) The conversion of Paul.  Paul was known as an executioner of Christians for the Sanhedrin.  It is hard to explain how someone who was so anti-Christian, became one, if he had not been convinced that the resurrection of Jesus was true.
  
  5) The devoted lives of the eye witnesses, many of which were martyred for their faith.  It is hard to explain the transformation of the first witnesses if they did not believe they had seen Jesus. 
  
  To claim there is no evidence is simply a false claim.   

  

• Do Christians have a warrant to say they are the "true" religion?

  just_sayin

  May 6
  An argument I've seen in this thread is that any claim of exclusivity means the religion is false.  This is a fallacy.  Something can be exclusive and true.  2+2=4 is an exclusive claim, however it is true.  One could argue that it would be far more inclusive if we allowed 2+3=4 to be considered true also.  However, the validity of a claim, rests on the claim itself.  The important question is not if something is exclusive, then, but if the claim is true.  

  

• Is Christianity a copy cat religion?

  just_sayin

  May 6
  While Christianity shares many beliefs with Judaism which precedes it, Christianity is uniquely rooted in a historical event - the death and resurrection of Jesus.  This event is the catalyst of the faith and the fundamental belief.  It is rare to see religions entire validity based on a historical event.  If some event in some other religion is shown to not be true, it would not invalidate the religion.  However,  Christianity, does make a unique historical claim.   As the Apostle Paul put it 
  
  

  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. - 1 Corinthians 15:17-19
  

  
  I believe there is strong evidence that the claims of Jesus death and resurrection are true.  The Apostle Paul quoted an early Christian creed in I Corinthians 15 that scholars date to no more than 18 months after the resurrection.  
  
  

  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, -  1 Corinthians 15:3-7
  

  
  The creed says that Jesus died, was buried and rose again on the third day. It names specific people Jesus appeared to.  This creed fits well with the testimonies of Matthew, John, James, and Peter.  
  

  

• Is Christianity a copy cat religion?

  just_sayin

  May 6

  MayCaesar said:

  "Copy-cat" is a little too harsh. Humans naturally built their ideas on top of existing knowledge, and when it comes to philosophy and fiction, their work is always derivative from something that preceded the authors. For example, the Dungeon and Dragons universe was inspired by Tolkien's work, whose universe was inspired by Nordic, Slavic, English and many other folklores, which, in turn, were inspired by ancient mythology, which probably were a follow-up from prehistoric tribal campfire stories.

  
  

  As for the claim that the authors of the Bible discovered some knowledge that was not found before them - that is debatable. Certain ideas in the Bible - such as "turn the other cheek" - may have been fairly novel, but it is hard to imagine that they just came out of the blue, that one carpenter out of nowhere started promoting them. I am not aware of this idea being seriously considered by the Ancient Greek philosophers, but they did consider the general idea of pacifism and non-violent opposition to tyranny: Epicurus, for instance, advocated for full acceptance of death regardless of where it comes from, and that idea is an arm's length away from the idea that if someone offends you, you will not go wrong by not only not reacting negatively to the offense, but making the offender's job easier by exposing yourself to them fully and accepting everything.

  
  

  Then again, it is very hard to find any idea that someone came up with fully on their own.
  

  While Christianity shares many beliefs with Judaism which precedes it, Christianity is uniquely rooted in a historical event - the death and resurrection of Jesus.  This event is the catalyst of the faith and the fundamental belief.  It is rare to see religions based on a historical event.  If some event in some other religion is shown to not be true, it would not invalidate the religion.  However,  Christianity, does make a unique historical claim.   As the Apostle Paul put it 
  
  

  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. - 1 Corinthians 15:17-19
  

  
  I believe there is strong evidence that the claims of Jesus death and resurrection are true.  The Apostle Paul quoted an early Christian creed in I Corinthians 15 that scholars date to no more than 18 months after the resurrection.  
  
  

  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, -  1 Corinthians 15:3-7t
  

  
  The creed says that Jesus died, was buried and rose again on the third day. It names specific people Jesus appeared to.  This creed fits well with the testimonies of Matthew, John, James, and Peter.  

  

• Do Christians have a warrant to say they are the "true" religion?

  MayCaesar

  May 3
  @Factfinder
  
  And this kind of subjective thinking corrodes all mental processes, on a very deep level. I remember having a conversation with a student who was accusing J. K. Rowling of being transphobic. Her argument was essentially, "What she says is offensive, so it is transphobic". My attempts to discuss whether what J. K. Rowling said was actually true went nowhere, as the student insisted that her words being "offensive" made any further considerations irrelevant.
  
  Just imagine what consequences on one's life thinking that their emotional response to an idea is more important than truthfulness of that idea has... It is no surprise that these people often do not exercise, have poor diets, are overweight, have terrible work ethics, are poor communicators, and so on and so on. Since they brush away all suggestions that they might be doing something wrong ("Who are you to tell me what I should do?!"), there is no negative feedback telling them that their life is going down the drain.
  
  Conversely, I knew a girl who got sick of everyone telling her that "she is okay the way she is" (she was extremely obese) and decided that enough was enough. Over the course of a year she went from barely being able to fit in her car seat, to looking lean as an Asian model. All other areas of her life also improved respectively.
  Putting the truth before the feelings and acting on it makes one into a different person, with drastically different life outcomes.

  

• Do Christians have a warrant to say they are the "true" religion?

  just_sayin

  May 2

  MistakenIdentity said:

  @just_sayin

  I know you're responding to someone else but it is fallacious to claim that just because people believe in something and they are willing to die for it, that means that their beliefs are true. 

  
  

  This should be obvious because Christians have killed and tortured Jews, Pagans and people of other faiths without converting them. So are their religions also true?

  You misunderstand the argument.  While someone may die for something they believe to be true, no one dies for something they know to be false.  The apostles encountered Jesus alive on multiple occasions in Jerusalem and in Galilee after his resurrection.  They repeated this throughout out their lives.  James, the brother of Jesus, was killed because of his belief in the resurrection.  Until the resurrection he believed Jesus was out of his head and was not a believer.  How do you go from unbeliever to martyr in just like that if you aren't convinced?  
  
  It is hard to explain away the reaction of the apostles after the resurrection.  The Jews were not looking for a resurrected Messiah.  There actions indicate that they truly believed what they had seen and witnessed.