Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

Paul was a wandering tent maker and a roman citizen in civil life. The only people that had the authority to detain a citizen had to do so under the authority of Rome. Paul even uses his status to circumvent a kangaroo court/trial in one instance, but could not escape capture and persecution by rome. Towards the end of his life Rome took a very hostile view against Christianity, and imprisioned, flogged, and executed Christians because they were viewed as enemies of the state, because most officals did not understand the religion fully, but feared the rapid growth. That is why ALL of the Apostles were eventually executed except John, who was banished to the prison Island of Patmos for the rest of his life. They all died in very bad ways as to serve as a warning to others.

Ok, suppose it's true that he was beheaded (Hard to tell if this was true or not), what exactly is special about that again? If he had schizophrenia and truly believed his views (even though they're not true), he would've still let himself be executed.

Lots of people out there who are ready to die for all sorts of beliefs. This isn't something exclusive to Christians.

Again death was simply the end result. Paul spent a large part of his ministry in jail, recovering from beatings, stonings, public caning, ect.

http://members.tripod.com/apostle_india/id2.html I cant vet the website but the content seems to be a cut and paste from the bible

[RoadRunner79]

It's a much more likely explanation than that they actually saw Jesus rise from the dead, appear to them as some form of spiritual being, and then ascend to heaven. It's also backed up by heaps of evidence from modern days that people are all too willing to believe things without evidence.

Miracles are by definition unlikely, so arguing that they're unlikely isn't really saying anything.

Yes... they are by definition not normal or everyday and repeatable occurrences. However unlikely in frequency does not equate to unlikely to have occurred.  Also that it occurred is not dependent on knowledge or understanding of the event.   I am an electrical engineer.   I build machine controls and interfaces, as well as troubleshoot industrial electrical equipment for shops in the area.     There are many number of times, where I have been told by a manufacturer tech support, that the event I had seen cannot happen.  However my observance of it, is better evidence that it can happen, than the phone techs understanding of it.   As a contractor, I often get called out  (even by places that have good techs) to troubleshoot odd and unlikely issues.  I also have to deal with non-repeatable issues.  So the argument that X cannot happen, when someone has seen it, does not carry as much weight with me.

Now a lot of my troubleshooting work is investigative, and I agree, that people do make mistakes.  I get bad reports of an issue often, and have to examine the evidence and filter out bad info  (often not paying attention or making assumptions).  Which is why I prefer to talk to multiple people who where there when the event occurred if possible.  There are also other methods, that by carefully examining all of the testimony, to determine what is accurate and more reliable.   I do like J. Warner Wallace at ColdCaseChristianity.com   He was a very successful cold case homicide detective who also described himself as a militant/aggressive atheist for a majority of his life.  When he started reading scripture for it's value as wisdom literature, he describes that it was the quality of the testimony and his experience dealing with witnesses that started him on the path to Christianity.  Similar to my own experience, he also says that simply dismissing evidence because of a priori assumptions is a poor investigative technique.

[GrandizerII]

Ok, suppose it's true that he was beheaded (Hard to tell if this was true or not), what exactly is special about that again? If he had schizophrenia and truly believed his views (even though they're not true), he would've still let himself be executed.

Lots of people out there who are ready to die for all sorts of beliefs. This isn't something exclusive to Christians.

Again death was simply the end result. Paul spent a large part of his ministry in jail, recovering from beatings, stonings, public caning, ect.

http://members.tripod.com/apostle_india/id2.html I cant vet the website but the content seems to be a cut and paste from the bible

1. He may have exaggerated.

2. He may have been a masochist.

[Drich]

Ah, no. Peter was an apostle geared toward converting OT Jews to Christianity.

Are you sure? (Acts 15:7)

Positive, read the angle fire link

[GrandizerII]

Miracles are by definition unlikely, so arguing that they're unlikely isn't really saying anything.

Now a lot of my troubleshooting work is investigative, and I agree, that people do make mistakes.  I get bad reports of an issue often, and have to examine the evidence and filter out bad info  (often not paying attention or making assumptions).  Which is why I prefer to talk to multiple people who where there when the event occurred if possible.

But when you still have at the end of it all insufficient information, what do you do then?

[John V]

Ah, no. Peter was an apostle geared toward converting OT Jews to Christianity.

Are you sure? (Acts 15:7)

Yes. (Gal 2:7-9). Peter's vision and experience with Cornelius was important to validate the ministry to the Gentiles, but that ministry was primarily Paul's.

[Drich]

Again death was simply the end result. Paul spent a large part of his ministry in jail, recovering from beatings, stonings, public caning, ect.

http://members.tripod.com/apostle_india/id2.html I cant vet the website but the content seems to be a cut and paste from the bible

1. He may have exaggerated.

2. He may have been a masochist.

1.He 'may' have been telling the truth. (After all anyone who saw him would have been able to see the scars and his beaten/broken body. it not like they had plastic surgery)

2.His beatings were from not yeilding to govermental pressure to stop teaching christianity. He even tried to use his status as a citizen of rome to stave off some of the punishments he endured. a masochist would have sought out the beatings not try and avoid them.

[Mister Agenda]

Paul's gift to Christianity was enabling them to focus on something besides the radical teachings of Jesus: charity, love, and forgiveness.

[Hmmm?]

Yes. (Gal 2:7-9). Peter's vision and experience with Cornelius was important to validate the ministry to the Gentiles, but that ministry was primarily Paul's.

oh

[John V]

Paul's gift to Christianity was enabling them to focus on something besides the radical teachings of Jesus: charity, love, and forgiveness.

When someone wants a Biblical passage on love for a wedding or whatever, Paul's 1 Cor 13 is the usual choice.