Paul/Saul persecuted Christians?

[Zzyzx]

.
Paul/Saul persecuted Christians before his Damascus Road 'vision'?

How could that be?

Acts 11:25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. So for a full year they met together with the church and taught large numbers of people. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.

[Overcomer]

Zzyyx wrote:

Do you dispute that Christianity was spread by conquest?

Before I can answer that question, we have to make a few distinctions, first of all, between cultural and nominal Christians vs. authentic born-again, Spirited-filled followers of Christ. Let’s take the Spanish in the New World as an example. The conquistadors were cultural and nominal Christians, meaning that they came from a country with Judaeo-Christian roots and might even have labeled themselves Christian (as opposed to Muslim, for example), but given their abuse of the indigenous people they encountered plus their lust for wealth and treasures, it’s obvious they were NOT following Jesus at all. I say this because to follow Jesus was to spread the news of his love to people and show that love to them in their interactions. You can tell who is following Christ and who isn’t by their actions.

So let’s look at the missionaries who went out of love and desire to bless those in the new lands and how they treated the natives. And let’s use as our example, one Bartolome de Las Casas, a Dominican friar who was once a slave-owner himself. But when he accepted Christ and became a follower of him, he recognized his treatment of the indigenous people was wrong and then stood up, along with other Christians, for those people and fought against those who wanted to exploit them.

See here:



In his memoirs, de las Casas describes priests standing between natives and the conquistadors, being hacked to death as they tried to stop the Spaniards who wanted to enslave the natives, pleading for the lives of those people because, as they said, all peoples, regardless of nationality or homeland, are precious in God’s sight. You can read what he wrote here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20321

That is what followers of Jesus do. They defend the rights of others. In fact, wherever true Christians went, they improved the lot of those they ministered to. They established schools and hospitals and stood up for the rights of women, children, the poor, the sick, the powerless. Let me give you some examples:

Amy Carmichael rescued literally hundreds of unwanted baby girls left in Hindu places of worship to be raised as temple prostitutes. She herself dressed as an Indian woman and went into these temples, hiding babies in a bundle of clothes so it looked like she was simply taking out the laundry. She and the organization that backed her built orphanages where these little girls were safe, loved and educated.

See here:

https://bethanygu.edu/blog/stories/amy-carmichael/

There’s George McKay who is still revered in Taiwan a century after he came to their country (then called Formosa). He established schools and hospitals.

See here:

http://thetaiwanese.blogspot.com/2006/0 ... ackay.html

I have friends who were missionaries in South Africa during the Apartheid. They refused to listen to those who told them not to go into the neighbourhoods of the segregated Blacks and became so close to them that they were adopted into one African tribe’s royal family.

Yes, there were Europeans who went to other countries and pillaged them. But again, we’re talking about cultural Christians, not true followers of Jesus Christ because in Jesus, all people are equal (Gal. 3:28) and his message transcends cultures.
See here:

https://www.insightforliving.ca/read/ar ... eing-equal

I also recommend Alvin Schimdt’s How Christianity Changed the World. Here is a review of it:

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2005/09/07/ ... n-schmidt/

Some information from the book:

1. Christian hospitals were the first voluntary charitable institutions.
2. Christians established the first public libraries in the Roman world.
3. Christians included girls as well as boys in their schools.
4. Christians established the first universities in Europe.
5. Christianity allows for democracy and freedom of speech since all people are considered of value.
6. Christians supported workers and workers’ rights.
7. Christians fought to end slavery and trumpeted social justice.

See here for more information and the positive effects that Christians have had on the world:

https://www.imb.org/2018/11/08/missiona ... for-world/


But the distinction between cultural/nominal Christians and authentic followers of Christ isn’t the only one we need to make. We also have to distinguish between missionaries who erroneously thought their job was to Westernize other people vs. those who wanted only to give people the chance to know Jesus and receive his salvation.

The Westernizers thought those in foreign lands should be like them. They wanted to change everything about them, even how they dressed (men should wear pants, not robes, for example). However, those who followed the teachings of Jesus Christ recognized that he transcends culture. He came for all. How people dress, what they eat, what music they make, what art they produce, what language they speak, what customs they have are immaterial. In fact, those things should be retained and celebrated and enjoyed. The only customs that these Christian missionaries wanted to change were the bad ones.

Let’s take the ministry of Jim Elliott and his colleagues for example. They went into the deep Amazon jungle to witness to tribes who practiced revenge killing. When one tribe killed a member of another, that death was avenged by a killing in retaliation. The average life span of a man was 30 years and they had no word for “grandfather� because no man ever lived long enough to become one. When some of the Indians killed Elliott and his colleagues, the widows and children of Elliott and the others heard that there was an epidemic spreading throughout the tribes so they went into the jungle and nursed the sick. They were living out the kind of forgiveness and love that Jesus did. By doing so, they changed that culture in a positive way. They now have a word for grandfather because men live long enough to become them.

The story of Elliott and the others is told in an excellent movie entitled End of the Spear. I highly recommend it. It is not a preachy movie. In fact, the name of Jesus is never spoken. It didn’t need to be because the actions of the missionaries and their children said it all.

See here:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blog ... sionaries/

https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/end-o ... 1154113057

For more on the difference between missionaries wanting to make disciples of Christ vs. missionaries wanting to Westernize foreign cultures, see here:

https://team.org/blog/do-western-missio ... e-cultures

So finally we come to the question you asked. Do I dispute the fact that Christianity was spread by conquest? Again, I have to make a distinction. Are we talking about physical conquest or spiritual conquest? If you suggest that Christianity can and was spread by the sword, then no, it was not. As Jesus said, it could not be and should not be (Matt. 26:52). However, it was spread – always has been and always will be – by spiritual conquest. By that I mean that the Holy Spirit draws someone to the Lord and converts him, bringing his spirit dead in sin into life in Christ. There is no other way by which someone becomes an authentic follower of Christ. You might be able to persuade people to sit in church or attend Bible studies and make nominal and cultural Christians out of them, but that’s not the same thing as a true follower of Christ. You only make true followers with love and compassion and respect for the ones you are witnessing to.

Bottom line: Jesus Christ and his gospel have never been the problem. It’s the people who fail to understand and live out that gospel who are the problem.

I will respond to the topics of Constantine, the Jewish rejection of Jesus, and the erroneous belief that Paul invented Christianity in separate posts.

[Zzyzx]

.

Do you dispute that Christianity was spread by conquest?

Before I can answer that question, we have to make a few distinctions, first of all, between cultural and nominal Christians vs. authentic born-again, Spirited-filled followers of Christ.

Who decides which is which? You? Me? Someone else?

How are “authentic born-again, Spirited-filled followers of Christ� identified with certainty?

Let’s take the Spanish in the New World as an example. The conquistadors were cultural and nominal Christians, meaning that they came from a country with Judaeo-Christian roots and might even have labeled themselves Christian (as opposed to Muslim, for example), but given their abuse of the indigenous people they encountered plus their lust for wealth and treasures, it’s obvious they were NOT following Jesus at all.

Is there a rating system for degrees of an individual's Christianity?

Whose opinion shall prevail? If Crusaders said they were “authentic born-again, Spirited-filled followers of Christ�, WHO is authorized / empowered to say they are not? Who appointed whom as judges?

Doesn't “authentic born-again, Spirited-filled followers of Christ� do exactly according to 'judge not' – or are they allowed to judge others because they are self-sanctimonious?

I say this because to follow Jesus was to spread the news of his love to people and show that love to them in their interactions. You can tell who is following Christ and who isn’t by their actions.

Is it 'loving' to condemn a person's beliefs and coerce them to change?

So let’s look at the missionaries who went out of love and desire to bless those in the new lands and how they treated the natives.

Yes, one can even 'find diamonds in the dung heap' according to Thomas Paine

In his memoirs, de las Casas describes priests standing between natives and the conquistadors, being hacked to death as they tried to stop the Spaniards who wanted to enslave the natives, pleading for the lives of those people because, as they said, all peoples, regardless of nationality or homeland, are precious in God’s sight.

There are a few diamonds.

That is what followers of Jesus do. They defend the rights of others.

If a person does not defend the rights of others, are they excommunicated? Who makes that judgment?

In fact, wherever true Christians went, they improved the lot of those they ministered to.

Try telling that to the native inhabitants of North and South America

They established schools and hospitals and stood up for the rights of women, children, the poor, the sick, the powerless. Let me give you some examples:

Were any slave-owners Christians? Did Christians defend slavery?

Amy Carmichael rescued literally hundreds of unwanted baby girls . . .

There are some diamonds. Is there also some dung? (“Yes but if they turn out to be dung we declare they are no longer members of our club�)

I have friends who were missionaries in South Africa during the Apartheid. They refused to listen to those who told them not to go into the neighbourhoods of the segregated Blacks and became so close to them that they were adopted into one African tribe’s royal family.

Do anecdotes prove an argument?

Yes, there were Europeans who went to other countries and pillaged them. But again, we’re talking about cultural Christians, not true followers of Jesus Christ because in Jesus, all people are equal (Gal. 3:28) and his message transcends cultures.

See 'No True Scotsman fallacy' below.

See here for more information and the positive effects that Christians have had on the world:

Has someone in this thread argued that Christianity had NO positive effects?

But the distinction between cultural/nominal Christians and authentic followers of Christ isn’t the only one we need to make.

Okay. How are 'authentic followers of Christ' identified? Do they have that embossed on their forehead?

We also have to distinguish between missionaries who erroneously thought their job was to Westernize other people vs. those who wanted only to give people the chance to know Jesus and receive his salvation.

Who decides? What criteria? Where are the records?

The Westernizers thought those in foreign lands should be like them. They wanted to change everything about them, even how they dressed (men should wear pants, not robes, for example). However, those who followed the teachings of Jesus Christ recognized that he transcends culture. He came for all. How people dress, what they eat, what music they make, what art they produce, what language they speak, what customs they have are immaterial. In fact, those things should be retained and celebrated and enjoyed. The only customs that these Christian missionaries wanted to change were the bad ones.

Nice idealized concept. Is it actually a dichotomy – or are those extreme positions on a continuum, with many variations possible between?

Dichotomous thinking is often simplistic. In reality there are often many positions between the extremes.

Let’s take the ministry of Jim Elliott and his colleagues for example.

One can usually find examples to illustrate their preferred end of the continuum. Are there also examples of the opposite end?

Would those missionaries have been in Africa without imperialism / conquest by European nations? What justifies nations invading / conquering other nations and imposing their preferences? Divine inspiration?

The story of Elliott and the others is told in an excellent movie entitled End of the Spear. I highly recommend it. It is not a preachy movie. In fact, the name of Jesus is never spoken. It didn’t need to be because the actions of the missionaries and their children said it all.

Thanks but I do not partake of propaganda films of any kind.

So finally we come to the question you asked. Do I dispute the fact that Christianity was spread by conquest? Again, I have to make a distinction. Are we talking about physical conquest or spiritual conquest?

Yes, let's play word games.

If you suggest that Christianity can and was spread by the sword, then no, it was not.

Is this to claim that the spread of Christianity was independent of conquests by the Roman empire (where it was official state religion) – and independent of conquest by European nations?

As Jesus said, it could not be and should not be (Matt. 26:52). However, it was spread – always has been and always will be – by spiritual conquest. By that I mean that the Holy Spirit draws someone to the Lord and converts him, bringing his spirit dead in sin into life in Christ.

Do Christians do exactly what Jesus is claimed to have said?

There is no other way by which someone becomes an authentic follower of Christ.

Thus, unless you (generic term) follow EXACTLY what Jesus said, you are not an 'authentic follower of Jesus'. Right?

You might be able to persuade people to sit in church or attend Bible studies and make nominal and cultural Christians out of them, but that’s not the same thing as a true follower of Christ.

Refer to the 'No True Scotsman' or 'Appeal to Purity' blunder in logic and reasoning.

“The No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defends the generalization of a group by excluding counter-examples from it. For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to abandon all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people". https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

You only make true followers with love and compassion and respect for the ones you are witnessing to.

A friend who is the best conman I ever encountered, said the same thing.

Bottom line: Jesus Christ and his gospel have never been the problem. It’s the people who fail to understand and live out that gospel who are the problem.

Correction: The problem is Christians.

As Gandhi famously said: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.�

Did Jesus make excuses?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 11 by Overcomer]

You could have summarised your lengthy post by simply stating that No True Christian would do that.