Religion can make you a better person?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", 3.1.1:

" 'Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.'"




So you have independent early church father attestation, and Paul likewise stating Luke was his traveling companion on his 2nd and 3rd journeys. Coupled with the fact Plutarch was born in 45 AD, (giving you the benefit of the doubt as many sources say 47 AD, but we can be liberal with the date), and Paul's 2nd journey being began in 49 AD, it's impossible Luke and Plutarch are the same individual. Plutarch would have been a 4 year old toddler.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Okay, I'm not above being corrected, if I am incorrect in my observations in general, please share your experience. Will you tell me which conservative experts, theologians, textual critics et cetra you search out to research for the rebuttals to claims from skeptics?

Share the ones you go to please.

sigh
I've given you source after source after link after book-recommendation after video to back up my stance. The thing is, I don't start from believing I know the TRUTH, the indisputable truth .... because I don't.

I approach the entire debate from a neutral point of view -- as a learner -- and look at information compiled and researched by very highly respected and recognized sources who know what they are talking about. I look into what other experts have to say about them, and which sources they go to and acknowledge.

I give respect to those who've dedicated their lives to investigating and studying these issues, specialists in EACH of the various angles - linguistic, archaeological, anthropological, sociological, historical, philosophical, etc. I'm always willing to hear NEW INFORMATION. If the information you have has been debunked, then why cling to it?

Why shoot the messenger? It is what it is. Normal human beings grow and learn throughout their lives. Some simply stop at a certain point and shut down their eyes, ears, brains, and curiosity.

I have looked into your sources. Have you looked into mine?

Witness to the OP's premise:
Westboro Baptist Church leader quits posted last night in Breaking Alternative News by Byrd.

This lady, 27 years old -- and her sister -- have just now realized THEY WERE WRONG, that they did harm, and that there was no legitimate way to continue living the way that they'd believed from the cradle was correct.

What made them better people? OPENING THEIR MINDS
What had initially crippled them? RELIGION

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The problem with that is... Irenaeus wasn't born until 130 AD. Any first hand accounts? You know, from people before 100 AD, people who would have known them personally.

But thank you for putting forth that effort, I appreciate it.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The problem with that is... Irenaeus wasn't born until 130 AD. Any first hand accounts? You know, from people before 100 AD, people who would have known them personally.

But thank you for putting forth that effort, I appreciate it.

edit on 9-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

I'll show you how stupid this argument is..

Do you believe in Alexander the Great? That he was a historical person?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It's actually a valid argument, but as far as Alexander? He could have existed, but then again he could have been fictional as well, who knows?

Anything from the time of Luke/Paul saying they traveled together? Did you know that around the time Luke's gospel was being written, Plutarch had already finished "Pyrrhus: The Fool of Hope"? So them being the same person is still wide open.

Acts 20:4-6: "He was accompanied by Sopater of Beroea, the son of Pyrrhus, . . . these went ahead and were waiting for us at Troas; but we sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we joined them in Troas, where we stayed for seven days."

The early translators did a strange thing with the name, Pyrrhus: They omitted it! And the King James Version did the same. The omission of this one name was crucial to subverting Luke's plan.

Who was Pyrrhus to the Greeks? This is a most fascinating character, and his importance in solving the riddle becomes evident very quickly:

Pyrrhus, The Fool of Hope, (319-272 BCE) was a story Plutarch wrote and titled at about the same time Luke's gospel was being penned.

The text from which the following excerpts were taken can be found at www.e-classics.com/pyrrhus.

" . . . Pyrrhus joined up with Demetrius, the husband of his sister . . ."

"Pyrrhus also sent some agents, who pretended to be Macedonians. These spies spread the suggestion that now the time had come to be liberated from the harsh rule of Demetrius by joining Pyrrhus, who was a gracious friend of soldiers."

"And so without fighting, Pyrrhus became King of Macedonia (286 BC)."

The kings of Epirus were said to have been descended from Pyrrhus (who was also known as Neoptolemus) who was the son of Achilles, the famous Greek warrior of the Trojan War. Pyrrhus and Alexander were said to be worthy descendants of Achilles.

Another tidbit about Pyrrhus is of great importance, and it's probably the reason his name was expunged from early biblical texts: He was one of the soldiers who hid inside the Trojan horse. And that is the best-known legacy from the legend of Troy. It's what everyone thinks of when Troy and the Trojan War are mentioned. The name Pyrrhus was inserted here in Luke's gospel in the same sentence as Troas to direct the reader to the legend of the Trojan Horse.

Source

Pyrrhus was one of the soldiers who hid in the trojan horse. Paul was the trojan horse sent in by the Romans, and so was Luke! But Luke (Plutarch) left clues behind for us to figure it all out.


Also weird is how the KJV bible completely omitted Pyrrhus from the verse. Why? Maybe because it was obvious what Luke was pointing toward? I think so.

reply to post by wildtimes


Who are the conservative Christian sources you go to to find the rebuttals to the liberal scholars and skeptics? Do you have their names handy. They should be right on the tip of your tongue. You claim you likewise take your research to that next level. So who are they?

And don't lie, you've never read any of the material I've suggested you look at. The furthest you ever go to is the review or criticism of them from somewhere on the net. You've never taken the path of logic with anything I've suggested you read and, as my quote in my signature says, condemned the material after investigating it for yourself first-hand.

Had you checked out my source like I suggested, you would have "The Case for the Real Jesus" on order from Amazon. Hell Wild, if you PM me your address I'll send you a copy free of charge so you can save the 5 dollars for some Starbucks.

But don't lie, you have never read a single book that I've kindly asked you to.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It's actually a valid argument, but as far as Alexander? He could have existed, but then again he could have been fictional as well, who knows?

Anything from the time of Luke/Paul saying they traveled together? Did you know that around the time Luke's gospel was being written, Plutarch had already finished "Pyrrhus: The Fool of Hope"? So them being the same person is still wide open.

That's not an answer, was Alexander a real person, ruler of ancient Greece? And I gave you three already from that exact period of time, three references from Paul's epistles stating Luke joined him when Barnabas went with John Mark.

That's straight from the horse's mouth himself. And it is a stupid argument, because NO historian worth anything ever denied Alexander lived and ruled Greece and the first accounts to be written of him that we have anywhere are from 400 years after the fact.

Guess who was the first historian to mention Alexander?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Paul wasn't sent by the Romans! The persecution from Rome came at the end of the first century, when Paul was alive the persecution came from the Jews. Rome couldn't care less about some obscure religious movement of their slaves at the time of Paul.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Or straight from someone else's hand adding in his name to complete the deception? Luke referencing multiple works by Plutarch should be one hint, them having the same name and same writing style should be another, them using some of the same characters (like Pyrrhus) should be another. They both lived and died in the same place, they both wrote their books at the same time.

It's pretty obvious to me, but you can keep trying to convince yourself there is nothing behind it though, keep living in ignorance if you want.

There's no way of knowing whether Alexander was real or not, lots of "history" is not history, but playwright in order to cover up the real truth. The winner writes history, remember that.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It's pretty obvious to me, but you can keep trying to convince yourself there is nothing behind it though, keep living in ignorance if you want.

That's astronomically arrogant considering you refuse to accept that Plutarch was born roughly 45 AD and would have been a 4 year old toddler at the time of Paul's second missionary journey.

Pot meet kettle.


And PLUTARCH was the first historian to document Alexander so either he was a charlatan as you say is possible, or he is accurate and his account is 400 years after the fact which shows your previous argument to be absurd that Irenaeus is ill-qualified as too late a source.

Which is it?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So you're saying that these connections that are there for everyone to see aren't really there? Just because you refuse to acknowledge them doesn't mean they aren't there you know.

Did you know that after Constantine legalized Christianity, he ordered the killing and torturing of those who wouldn't accept his version of "truth"?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I agree that Plutarch was born in 45 AD, I haven't denied that. What I'm denying is that Luke was really Luke.

You're ignoring the fact that Plutarch was already writing stuff around the same time Luke and Acts were being written.

Plutarch also wrote about Romulus, a clearly fictional legend. So since he wrote about Romulus that means he was a real person right? Just because someone writes about something doesn't make it true.


Another interesting tidbit: Romulus had a twin brother whom he killed. That story brings to mind that of Cain and Abel. Could there be a connection there?

Romulus had a pretty similar death to Jesus according to Plutarch. He also talks about Romulus being raised by a she-wolf. Are those to be taken as fact too?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So you're saying that these connections that are there for everyone to see aren't really there? Just because you refuse to acknowledge them doesn't mean they aren't there you know.

Did you know that after Constantine legalized Christianity, he ordered the killing and torturing of those who wouldn't accept his version of "truth"?

No, I'm saying they are conjecture. And you have to make a concerted effort to ignore fact to believe conjecture.

You claim Luke is Plutarch, Luke was a traveling companion of Paul during his 2nd and 3rd missionary journeys, affirmed three different times by Paul, and again by early church fathers. Paul's 2nd journey began in 49 AD, when Plutarch was a 4 year old boy.

You simply cannot ignore historical facts from multiple sources to support conjecture. That's irrational.

And Constantine only legalized the faith, it wasn't made the official faith of the Empire until Theodocius I. Constantine just ended the persecution. It was still a very minor sect in Rome at that time.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


How do you know what's fact? How can you know something is fact because it was written down on a piece of paper, sometimes years and years after the fact? Do you believe Odysseus actually existed and fought serpents and monsters?

You're whole argument is based around the idea that everything written in Acts is 100% fact. You start with that assumption then ignore anything that goes against your bias. Acts wasn't written until after everything was said and done by an author who holds TONS of similarities between a historian from the SAME TIME, who wrote with the SAME WRITING TECHNIQUE, who used some of the SAME CHARACTERS in his stories, referenced and mirrored Luke on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, who was born in the SAME TOWN, traveled to the SAME PLACES as Luke, and who used the SAME TERMS AND EXPRESSIONS UNIQUE TO LUKE ALONE.

You only have ONE reference that links Luke and Paul traveling together and it was mentioned by a man who wasn't born until 70 years AFTER the events in Acts supposedly took place, in a time where this particular piece of the puzzle was already put in place by Paul and his cohorts years and years earlier.

All the evidence points to them being the same person, ONE piece of evidence points to them not and that ONE PIECE of evidence didn't originate until 70-100 years AFTER the events took place. I have linked several different sources and texts to support my case, you have not. You keep falling back on the SPECULATION that Luke traveled with Paul.



So Constantine legalized Christianity to stop the persecution, huh? Then why did he start it right back up after the legalization?


Rome killed Jesus, so why do you hold to their word so tightly? It's like loving the murderer of your brother or sister.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Who are the conservative Christian sources you go to to find the rebuttals to the liberal scholars and skeptics? Do you have their names handy.

Uhhh.....how about The Vatican Insider; Father Spong; Karen Armstrong - a former nun; Tammy Faye; y-jesus; CatholicAnswers; Apologetics sites; Mormon sites; Baptist sites; .....

You know what? Screw this. Now you're just being childish, insulting and rude. I don't waste my money at Starbucks, dude, and you have disintegrated from intelligent debate to vicious attack. Which indicates to me that you are afraid, and your mind is closed. If all you are looking for is ways to shore up your "apologetics" against assault, you are not trying to learn.

In fact, you obviously are NOT trying to learn - you are trying to defend your faith against very reasonable, educated, thorough inspection and indisputable discrepancies that you can't explain. I find it very shallow; and when you start flinging "starbucks" and "dear" around you have stooped to condescending.

You have no argument that I can't refute with knowledgeable sources. That is not MY FAULT, or MY SHORTCOMING.

Your idea of "Christianity" has crippled your ability to gain knowledge, insight, and education. You have accepted lies and exaggerations and literalism above reason, intuition, history, and balanced study. The only thing you have is insults and defensive, childish, immature thinking that is parroted from other "Apologists."

Case in point of the OP. Well done, you.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Paul wasn't sent by the Romans!

Yes, he was!!!!!!!!

For the first half of his life, Paul was a member of the Pharisees, a Jewish faction that promoted strict orthodoxy and formalism.[10] They were formidable persecutors of the new Christian movement, and Paul later described himself as a "Pharisee, a son of Pharisees".[Acts 23:6] [11]
Before becoming a follower of Jesus, Paul zealously persecuted the newly-forming Christian church, trying to destroy it. He likely traveled from synagogue to synagogue, urging the punishment of Jews who accepted Jesus as the messiah.[5] He held the coats of those who stoned Stephen, the first Christian martyr, to death.[Acts 7:58; 8:1; 22:20] He also went from house to house, dragging both men and women Christian believers to prison.[8:3] He caused believers to be bound and probably tortured in an attempt to get them to deny their faith in Christ. When they refused, he voted to have them condemned to death.[6:10-11] [22:4,19]

Paul the Apostle

Paul was first and foremost an enigma. His original name was Saul of Tarsus. A Jew, he inherited Roman citizenship, perhaps granted by the Romans as a reward for mercenary service. This might explain why he had two names: He used his Jewish name, Saul, within the Jewish community and his Roman name, Paul, when speaking Greek.

He had a strict Jewish upbringing and received training as a rabbi in Jerusalem under Gamaliel. Like most rabbis, he supported himself with a manual trade; in his case, tent making. He obviously grew into a man of some sophistication.

Although it is fairly certain that he never met Jesus while in Jerusalem, he learned enough about him and his followers to regard the Christian movement as a threat to Pharisaic Judaism, of which he was an enthusiast. He had become a member of the Pharisees, the Jewish sect that promoted purity and fidelity to the Law of Moses.

Paul's first appearance on the historical Jewish-Christian landscape was as an oppressor of the members of the newly founded church. Serious persecutions of Christians started with converts in Jerusalem, and Saul was a fierce advocate of the regime of persecution. So eager was Saul to pursue, threaten, and slaughter Christians that he went to the high priest to request letters to the synagogues of Damascus so that if he discovered Christians, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

The Spread of Christianity

Born: c. 5 A.D.
Died: c. 62 A.D.
Birthplace: Tarsus, Cilicia (now Turkey)
Best known as: Author of the biblical letters to Romans and Corinthians
The apostle Paul wrote the Christian religion's earliest texts while crisscrossing the Mediterranean and preaching about the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Paul's letters to other believers -- declaring that Jesus had risen from the dead and was the Christ, the anointed one, foretold by Jewish prophets -- are now a vital part of the New Testament of the Bible, and his words have strongly influenced Christian thinking and worship. Paul himself did not start out as a Christian believer. According to the biblical book The Acts of the Apostles, he was originally known as Saul and was an authorized persecutor of the followers of Jesus.


Read more: Paul of Tarsus Biography (Biblical Figure/Saint) — Infoplease.com Paul of Tarsus Biography summary

reply to post by wildtimes


Lol, the person writing that article doesn't know Greek. Saul took the name Paul as an act of humility after he converted. Saul was a very proud honorary name to Jews, and he changed it to Paul meaning "small".

He wasn't sent by Romans, his father was influential and procured Roman citizenship for his son by purchasing it. Lastly, during the first few decades of Christianity Rome didn't care about Christians, they began to be persecuted by Rome at the end of the first century. Paul was being persecuted by the Jewish authorities, not Rome. He only appealed to Rome his conviction.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Wait... you didn't know that Saul persecuted Christians? Please tell me you did, because that's pretty basic knowledge. Like wildtimes pointed out, he was avid about killing them before his "conversion".

reply to post by NOTurTypical

the person writing that article doesn't know

See? See how you are?
WHICH ARTICLE? I posted three.


EDIT: You know what? Never mind. Banging + brick wall. My head hurts.