... and if you're wrong?

[Ancient Soul]

What if the small handful of men on whose backs rest the entirety of Christianity were actually liars?

View attachment 43145

It seems to me that this is greater issue for Christianity that most other religions as Christianity rests almost entirely on the back of a previous code of law that directly commands not to have the very belief that Christianity requires. Unlike Islam which denies that there was a previous code of law different to itself, Christianity says, yes, there were laws that prohibited Christian belief, but those were changed.

And while the Jewish people point to an entire generation of ancestors who received this code of Law via Divine revelation, the Christian must rely on a handful of individuals who are said to have witnessed some miracles which convinced them that this original law had been uprooted.

I've sometimes seen Pascal's wager given as an argument to believe in Christianity. I may be biased, but it seems to me that based on Pastor Noel's words wagering on Christianity is already a pretty heavy risk.

Thoughts?

Christianity was just one of many primitive competing man made religions/mythologies that became "popular" due to it's clever fear mongering reward/punishment brainwashing system that has been refined to near perfection over the centuries. Well, all of that plus being forced upon the world thru the most horrific beatings, torture, killings, etc...

 

[Ancient Soul]

1. In my mind, and possibly in my mind only.... I do consider it quite plausible that God if he exists would frown on Christianity.

2. However, to give up Christianity if I was a Christian or even considering it or looking at it outside from it, and say that the Jewish people are correct... it'd be a much more difficult argument to sell me.

The first paragraph I stated would involve attacking away at the cohesive strengths when it comes to the evidence of Christianity. Then eventually we will get to questions of how to define God to begin with, etc.

The second paragraph, 2., involves saying "not this, but that" and making positive arguments proving not only for X faith, but also defining the ways it's valid while Y isn't.

Which is what EVERYONE should be doing!!!

Using rational thinking and trying to determine which "this and that" is the CORRECT spiritual path to follow, and NOT blindly following some silly man made religion/mythology that gives no true spiritual answers. It should be an ever changing spiritual path as new evidence comes to light.

 

[Dave Watchman]

What if the small handful of men on whose backs rest the entirety of Christianity were actually liars?

They weren't liars.

And they weren't a small handful.

Paul, when writing to the Hebrews, called them "a great cloud of witnesses".

He also said Jesus was the God of the Old Testament.

And that Rock was Christ.

"For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.​

And while the Jewish people point to an entire generation of ancestors who received this code of Law via Divine revelation, the Christian must rely on a handful of individuals who are said to have witnessed some miracles which convinced them that this original law had been uprooted.

And I believe it too.

I believe Moses stood right there in front of Pharaoh.

I believe Daniel stood right there in front of Nebuchadnezzar.

I also believe Jesus said Jerusalem Jerusalem

You who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’
​

I believe, not because of the miracles, I believe because it was given to me to believe. I have no choice in the matter.

I couldn't NOT believe.

"Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.​

I've sometimes seen Pascal's wager given as an argument to believe in Christianity. I may be biased, but it seems to me that based on Pastor Noel's words wagering on Christianity is already a pretty heavy risk.

You may think so.

I thought that wager had to do with a general belief in God, not specifically in Christianity.

Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, theologian, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.​

Thoughts?

I think you'll be OK.

But if your religion is "Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, you will never believe Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.

And that no man can come to the Father, except through the Son.

It's that blinded in part, part.

Until the times of the gentiles are finished.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[oldbadger]

They weren't liars.

Well........ some were, you know.
But mostly the apostles believed what they wrote.

Paul, when writing to the Hebrews, called them "a great cloud of witnesses".

He also said Jesus was the God of the Old Testament.

But Paul was no witness, and nor were most of the followers.
Let'#s face it, only Magdalene, Salome and a few other women were present at the crucifixion...... all the rest had scarpered.

I believe Moses stood right there in front of Pharaoh.

I believe Daniel stood right there in front of Nebuchadnezzar.

So...... what?

I also believe ....................

That's fine. No problem in believing in something, as long as it doesn't affect the lives or freedoms of others.

 

[74x12]

Every religion has stories like these, about how the god(s) of those religions "manifest" in the daily lives of the worshippers of those gods.

Like back when Julius Ceasar commanded the roman legions. Multiple times, they completely beat the odds of battles. Multiple times, did they annihilate their enemies while being unimaginably outnumbered. 'Mars' was with them on the battlefield, giving them strength, courage and endurance and fighting along side them, making them invinsible.

Stories like David and Goliath are a dime a dozen.

They can't all be correct. But they can all be wrong.

Which is why as I said our faith should be seen in our own lives. Why don't people have their own David and Goliath stories? Did God stop answering prayers? But we do and He doesn't stop. Therefore we are convinced because we see the hand of God in our own lives. We don't need other people's stories.

 

[74x12]

The problem with this argument is that, well, what if it's not only Christians who see the effects of having faith in their lives? If that's the case, and a quick Google search will demonstrate that it is, then faith, or the effects of it on the Christian life, ceases to be a proof for the religion.

I'm talking about personal proof. If I wanted to talk about proof for others then you need someone like Elijah to come and challenge the false prophets. Which by the way the prophets of Baal were fully convinced Baal would answer them. But Elijah knew that he knew God so it didn't matter they said.

What I keep telling people on this forum is the result of faith should be seen in your own life. That way you don't need to listen or worry about what the many other conflicting religious views have to say.

Everything you wrote here is just a matter of perspective. If Christianity is wrong as in the OP hypothetical, then what you wrote here is also wrong. So it's not really relevant and also doesn't address the brunt of my second point at all, which was in the stark difference in nature between the first revelation and the one that was supposed to change the status quo.

There is perfect continuity. Every bit of it is prophesied in the writings of the prophets. Nothing is changed except that the resurrection has begun.

 

[Glaurung]

I don't think what you're saying is 100% truthful. There is a contradiction between the laws of the Torah and the requirements of the NT. We can find plenty of Laws that the Torah requires that Christians believe are no longer in force. That's a contradiction.

Recognizing the Law of Moses as divinely revealed yet at the same time holding it as no longer binding under the New Law of Christ is not a contradiction. The Law of Moses served a particular divine purpose which we believe to have been the foreshadowing of Christ. God separated the Hebrews out for that unique privilege. That's why God dealt with them uniquely.

But it is also fitting that God should reveal himself to everyone under a new law binding on all. After all, God is the God all, not merely the tribal deity of a particular ethnic group. And Christians believe that this revelation is none other than Christ. And yes, under Christ the laws that deal with the ceremonial and judicial observances that governed the Hebrew nation no longer bind, but the moral law has not changed. If anything, it has become even stricter.

in my OP, I point out that the strength of the claim to authenticity of the commandments of the Torah is greater than that of the NT, because the entire nation received Divine revelation proving to them the authenticity of Moses' prophecy at Mt. Sinai, while nobody saw G-d speaking to jesus. Instead, they rely on the claims of a handful of people. Rationally though, it should be the opposite. It should take a stronger proof to invalidate an established claim.

We don't believe Jesus received a revelation like Moses. We believe Jesus is the revelation. Jesus is God. The one and same God who gave Moses the Law. And as to your claim that only a handful of people have seen Christ, that's not true. The Church has been established over the whole globe and has endured two thousand years. And throughout those two thousands years there have been countless miracles attesting to the truth of the Gospels. Of course, you may dismiss those miracles, or like the witnessing Pharisees, chalk them up as the work of demons. God does not compel faith.

But maybe, just maybe, God knew what he was doing when he established the Church. Even if initially, it was on the testimony of a handful.

 

[Estro Felino]

If we speak of Gentiles...meaning ancient Romans ...they had never known the Tanakh...they just listened to preachers like Saint Peter.
This scene is when they were fed to lions by Nero...in the Neronian Circus (the Colosseum will be built some years later). Which was where the Vatican square stands now.

 

[pearl]

in my OP, I point out that the strength of the claim to authenticity of the commandments of the Torah is greater than that of the NT, because the entire nation received Divine revelation proving to them the authenticity of Moses' prophecy at Mt. Sinai, while nobody saw G-d speaking to jesus. Instead, they rely on the claims of a handful of people. Rationally though, it should be the opposite. It should take a stronger proof to invalidate an established claim.

Unless the Hebrew Scripture in the Christian Bible has it wrong Moses was alone, talking to a 'bush', and not even he 'saw' God, not until later did the 70? ascend the mountain.

Interesting. So who's Moses in your version of Christianity? Google tells me he's mentioned a number of times in the NT.

Without Exodus there would be no Christianity, it is there that is found the 'blueprint' for the Kingdom of God, Jesus is often referred to as the 'new' Moses, the Exodus event is used in liturgical prayers, at baptism, in the Mass, especially during high holy days, No one can read the prophets nor the wisdom writers and not even much of the Gospels apart from the Exodus event.

 

[Dave Watchman]

But Paul was no witness, and nor were most of the followers.
Let'#s face it, only Magdalene, Salome and a few other women were present at the crucifixion...... all the rest had scarpered.

Paul was knocked off his horse and blinded by Christ.

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Paul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

— Acts 9:3–9, NIV​

The account continues with a description of Ananias of Damascus receiving a divine revelation instructing him to visit Saul at the house of Judas on the Street Called Straight and there lay hands on him to restore his sight (the house of Judas is traditionally believed to have been near the west end of the street).[5] Ananias is initially reluctant, having heard about Saul's persecution, but obeys the divine command:

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

— Acts 9:13–19, NIV

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. ...But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

— Galatians 1:11–16, NIV
​

That's direct revelation man.

It doesn't get any getter than that.

Even Wiki knows it:

Conversion of Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia

That's fine. No problem in believing in something, as long as it doesn't affect the lives or freedoms of others.

Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think so based on my read.

Revelation talks of a time that will come when God will destroy the destroyers of the earth.

"The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.” - Revelation 11:18​

How do they destroy the earth?

What comes first the chicken or the egg?

When the transgressors reach their limit, like the antediluvians did, they trigger the wrath of God.

In this case the "lives" and the "freedoms" of others have caused the earth to become defiled, and the land vomits out it's inhabitants.

It's an awful thing to fall into the hand of the living God.

Even if you're living on the same planet as someone who has fallen into the hands of the living God.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Paul was knocked off his horse and blinded by Christ.

That explains much.

 

[Dave Watchman]

That explains much.

"Blessed is the man You choose, And CAUSE to approach You, That he may dwell in Your courts. We shall be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, Of Your holy temple.
- Psalm 65:4
​

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[pearl]

That explains much.

But is it anymore unbelievable than an man talking to a bush, that doesn't burn?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But is it anymore unbelievable than an man talking to a bush, that doesn't burn?

People talk to all manner of things.

 

[oldbadger]

Paul was knocked off his horse and blinded by Christ.

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Paul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

— Acts 9:3–9, NIV​

The account continues with a description of Ananias of Damascus receiving a divine revelation instructing him to visit Saul at the house of Judas on the Street Called Straight and there lay hands on him to restore his sight (the house of Judas is traditionally believed to have been near the west end of the street).[5] Ananias is initially reluctant, having heard about Saul's persecution, but obeys the divine command:

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

— Acts 9:13–19, NIV

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. ...But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

— Galatians 1:11–16, NIV
​

That's direct revelation man.

It doesn't get any getter than that.

Even Wiki knows it:

Conversion of Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia



Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think so based on my read.

Revelation talks of a time that will come when God will destroy the destroyers of the earth.

"The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.” - Revelation 11:18​

How do they destroy the earth?

What comes first the chicken or the egg?

When the transgressors reach their limit, like the antediluvians did, they trigger the wrath of God.

In this case the "lives" and the "freedoms" of others have caused the earth to become defiled, and the land vomits out it's inhabitants.

It's an awful thing to fall into the hand of the living God.

Even if you're living on the same planet as someone who has fallen into the hands of the living God.

Peaceful Sabbath.

Ah, but Luke wasn't there.
What a pity that Paul couldn't tell us for himself.

I think that on his way to Damascus Paul had a blinding idea, how to manipulate the Jesus following in to ..... Christianity. Jesus never knew the word.

 

[oldbadger]

​

That's direct revelation man.

It doesn't get any getter than that.

Even Wiki knows it:

No, Wiki just delivers other people's messages.

Apostle John did have some strange ideas, but he was not the disciple, never knew Jesus, didn't know what happened or when.

Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think so based on my read.

Revelation talks of a time that will come when God will destroy the destroyers of the earth.

"The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.” - Revelation 11:18​

How do they destroy the earth?

What comes first the chicken or the egg?

When the transgressors reach their limit, like the antediluvians did, they trigger the wrath of God.

In this case the "lives" and the "freedoms" of others have caused the earth to become defiled, and the land vomits out it's inhabitants.

It's an awful thing to fall into the hand of the living God.

Even if you're living on the same planet as someone who has fallen into the hands of the living God.

Peaceful Sabbath.

We don't want to go back to a World where Christianity subjects the people to its rules and laws. The hypocrisy and wickedness was quite disgusting, you know.

I'm a Deist so I perceive God quote differently to you.

 

[Dave Watchman]

We don't want to go back to a World where Christianity subjects the people to its rules and laws. The hypocrisy and wickedness was quite disgusting, you know.

I'm a Deist so I perceive God quote differently to you.

Well stay safe then old boy.

Enjoy your freedoms while it is day.

Until the night comes when no man can work.

And congratulations on the 18,000 posts.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[Terry Sampson]

But is it anymore unbelievable than an man talking to a bush, that doesn't burn?

A fellow who talks to a bush, whether or not it's burning, is one thing. A bush that talks to the fellow is an entirely different matter. Exodus 3:4.

• The Lord saw that he had turned to see, and God called to him from within the thorn bush, and He said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am!"
• וַיַּ֥רְא יְהֹוָ֖ה כִּ֣י סָ֣ר לִרְא֑וֹת וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹהִ֜ים מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֗ה וַיֹּ֛אמֶר משֶׁ֥ה משֶׁ֖ה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי:

 

[pearl]

A fellow who talks to a bush, whether or not it's burning, is one thing. A bush that talks to the fellow is an entirely different matter. Exodus 3:4.

I was just being humorous, but is it any different than Paul's account of what happened to him? That is by Paul's own account not the embellishment of it found in Acts.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I was just being humorous

Got it.

but is it any different than Paul's account of what happened to him?

I started to say: "Certainly not, IMO." And then it occurred to me that the difference is, the first fellow saw a burning bush, the second fellow didn't. Personally, I accept both accounts without question.