4 ms·
Jesus claimed to offer everlasting life to those who believe in him (see Gospel of John). Worth looking into?
by theodorejb 3y ago
Jesus claimed to offer everlasting life to those who believe in him (see Gospel of John). Worth looking into?
- ithkuil 3y agoSo did Muhammad (see Quran). Worth looking into?
- defrost 3y agoSo do Yolngu and Wiradjuri Dreamtime stories that date back 70,000+ years. Worth looking into?
- ithkuil 3y agoYeah pretty much any pagan religion has some sort of post mortuary soothing story. Worth looking into?
- defrost 3y agoSeems redundant given 'pagan' means either * not Christian other religions in the Roman Empire, or (more generally) * not Christian religions. Easier to say most, if not all, religions have an afterlife story.
- ithkuil 3y agoYeah I love picking nits too. I just meant to reaffirm that it's not an Abrahamic religion innovation.
- defrost 3y agoI have trouble working out who the pagans are: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-20/the-christian-converts-who-are-setting-fire-to-sacred-aboriginal/11527402 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-20/the-christian-convert...
- ithkuil 3y agoPagan: "a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main or recognized religions." whatever that means
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoTo the Romans, weren't Christians the Pagans. They were some fringe group from the frontier with some wacky ideas.
- defrost 3y agoIf that's a question then no, the Romans did not use the word pagan to refer to Christians. The early usage (according to the OED) was [ad. L. pāgān-us, orig. ‘villager, rustic; civilian, non-militant’, opposed to mīlēs ‘soldier, one of the army’, in Christian L. (Tertullian, Augustine) ‘heathen’ as opposed to Christian or Jewish. The Christians called themselves mīlitēs ‘enrolled soldiers’ of Christ, members of his militant church, and applied to non-Christians the term applied by soldiers to all who were ‘not enrolled in the army’. Cf. Tertullian De Corona Militis xi, ‘Apud hunc [Christum] tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles infidelis’. See also Gibbon xxi. Cf. payen. The explanation of L. pāgānus in the sense ‘non-Christian, heathen’, as arising out of that of ‘villager, rustic’, (supposedly indicating the fact that the ancient idolatry lingered on in the rural villages and hamlets after Christianity had been generally accepted in the towns and cities of the Roman Empire: see Trench Study of Words 102, and cf. Orosius i Præf. ‘Ex locorum agrestium compitis et pagis pagani vocantur’) has been shown to be chronologically and historically untenable, for this use of the word goes back to Tertullian c 202, when paganism was still the public and dominant religion, and even appears, according to Lanciani, in an epitaph of the 2nd cent.] 1. One of a nation or community which does not hold the true religion, or does not worship the true God; a heathen. (†In earlier use practically = non-Christian, and so including Muslims and, sometimes, Jews.) 2. fig. or allusively. A person of heathenish character or habits, or one who holds a position analogous to that of a heathen in relation to Christian society. etc.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoGuess I wasn't implying that Romans literally used the word "Pagan" as we use it today, but they had their own religion before Christianity, and also had a word for other religions. So just like Christians call others pagans, The Romans had a word to call out others. (thus my main point, everyone thinks they are the 'one', and have a word to disparage others). So maybe they didn't use Pagan, but Figuratively, they thought of Christians as the weird/low class/savage, "A person of heathenish character or habits, or one who holds a position analogous to that of a heathen". If you are disputing this because by definition "Pagan" means non-Christian, thus by definition Christians can't be "Pagan". Fine, how about "Superstitio"? Suetonius and Tacitus used the terms "superstitio" "On the other hand, Romans believed Christians, who were thought to take part in strange rituals and nocturnal rites, cultivated a dangerous and superstitious" sect.[60]: 125
- soligern 3y agoHow interesting. Is there any religion without any opinion on the afterlife or is that the unifying thing for all religions.
- protomolecule 3y agoHow was it dated?
- defrost 3y agoStable persistent settlement has been dated by genetic clocks, various types of radiological markers on rock art and layered artifacts and middens with ranges at differing locations from comfortably 30k years out to 70k years at a stretch - it's a very big country. eg: at least 50k established by genetics for most of the land area: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416
- protomolecule 3y agoBut how were the stories dated? 70k is so long before the invention of writing systems.
- theodorejb 3y agoThe Quran says that Allah sent Jesus with the Gospel (Sura 5:46). If this is true, then what Jesus said is true.
- lucozade 3y agoAll of the people that Jesus was referring to did, in fact, die. So that's not going to help the person you're responding to.
- theodorejb 3y agoEyewitnesses wrote that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, and later rose from the dead himself. If this really happened it makes sense why none of the apostles were afraid to die for what they were certain was true.
- lucozade 3y agoSo? The followers still all died. Whether or not they may have been happy about dying doesn't change that. And I'm not sure what Lazarus has to do with this unless your suggesting that his raising means that he couldn't die i.e. he's still alive. That would be a very unusual interpretation.
- theodorejb 3y agoIt shows that this death is like a temporary sleep which God will wake us from. None who believe in Jesus will perish (experience the permanent second death after the judgment). John 5:28-29
- pfdietz 3y agoFlying Spaghetti Monster promises eternal meatballs. Worth looking into? Maybe I should hold out for "and everyone gets a pony."
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]