I believe what ITR champion was saying here is that Hinduism doesn’t have a founder or founder with attached magical stories. In other words, unlike Buddhism and Buddha or Christianity and Christ, Hinduism grew up more gradually and organically from the ancient Indo-European Vedic polytheism, without any single founder figure (real or legendary).
There were early and sucessful Christian Churches throughout that area. And indeed, some Jews did convert- Peter, Paul, the other Apostles, and quite a few more. There are still a fair number of Christians there. Of course, the Moslems did quite a bit to get rid of other religions. If fact there wouldn’t be many Jews in that area if they hadn’t returned.
cosmodan quotes this attack vs Strobel “Strobel did not interview any critics of Christian apologetics, even though he attacks such individuals in his book.[2] For example, Strobel devotes an entire chapter to his interview of Greg Boyd (an outspoken faultfinder of the Jesus Seminar), yet Strobel never interviewed a single member of the Jesus Seminar itself! Likewise, he repeatedly criticizes Michael Martin, author of Case Against Christianity, but he never bothered to get Martin’s responses to those attacks.” In other words, Strobel is wrong as he did not interview those he criticized. But the critics of Strobel did not interview Strobel.
The web site it’s posted on doesn’t invalidate legitimate points or factual statements does it? As I’ve said, I didn’t present it as an unbiased source. From the tone of Lowder’s article my guess is he’d welcome a chance to interview Strobel and have him address specific points. YMMV.
Or at least let Christian American men have more than one wife. If all fertile women were married to God fearing heteros and had 5 or 10 kids each, we’d catch up in a heartbeat.
Didn’t you make this point already? How relevant is it?
The larger point Lowder was making was that the book was presented and promoted as an examination of Christ from an investigative journalist’s pov rather than a book of Christian apologists by another apologist. I’ve posted Lowder’s praise of Strobel recently.
Beyond that here in GD we’re expected to present opposing views and address the details,facts, and valid points raised. Let’s try that.
btw, a statement of fact is not necessarily an attack.
This all began because **ITR champion ** mentioned Strobel as source of information at least twice. I only wanted to point out that he isn’t all that reliable and scholarship and opinions don’t agree.
There is no evidence for this.
We have no idea what Peter and other direct followers of Jesus believed. To say they “converted” is probably a misnomer, though, since we have no reaso to believe they ever thought of themslves as anything but Jews.
Strobel poses as an objective, investigative journalist, yet does not examine any evidence or make any inquiries contrary to the fundy, evangelist point of view. He accepts all fundy claims at face value.
Critics of Strobel are already responding directly to Strobel. They are taking his words on directly. I don’t know why you think you’re making any kind of point with this angle. What are his critics supposed to find out by inteviewing him which would alter their response to him or change any facts or evidence.
Strobel doesn’t criticize or respond to contrary views or evidence. he just acts like they don’t exist (and it’s not just “skeptics” he ignores, but mainstream scholarship in general, most of which is done by Christians.
Hey man, mellow out. I’m just kickin’ back, reading a thread where I actually agree with Diogenes the Cynic, et al., which is making my head feel surreal and kinda trippy.
So don’t harsh my buzz, dude. 
I’m still waiting for ITR to tell us exactly what the “newly discovered archaeological evidence” is for a second Quirinius. I’d also like him to explain how a Roman census could have been imposed on Judea before it became part of a Roman province. Enough handwringing about the attacks on poor little Strobel. Let’s talk raw evidence. I’m waiting. Knock me out.
Oh, and why would a cenus in Judea impose any requirement on people living in Galilee?
Guru Nanak - Wikipedia “Guru Nanak Dev […] is the central figure in Sikhism, and named as the first of the ten Sikh Gurus.”
His life is detailed in the Janamsakhis, which “record miraculous acts and supernatural conversations.” It continues to note, “Though from the point of view of a historian the janamsakhis may be inadequate, they cannot be wholly discarded because they were based on legend and tradition which had grown up around the Guru in the years following his demise, and furnish useful material to augment the bare but proved facts of his life.” Comparing this to the formation of the New Testament.
Let’s look at Buddhism as well. The main guy is The Buddha - Wikipedia
“During the birth celebrations, the hermit seer Asita journeyed from his mountain abode and announced that the child would either become a great king (chakravartin) or a great holy man.”
“He was concerned that, as human beings were overpowered by greed, hatred and delusion, they would not be able to see the true dharma, which was subtle, deep and hard to understand. However, a divine spirit, Brahmā Sahampati, interceded and asked that he teach the dharma to the world, as “there will be those who will understand the Dharma”.” (Bolding added)
“Devadatta attempted three times to kill the Buddha. The first attempt involved the hiring of a group of archers, whom upon meeting the Buddha became disciples.”
“The Mahayana Vimalakirti Sutra explains, in Chapter 3, that the Buddha doesn’t really become ill or old but purposely presents such an appearance only to teach those born during the five defilements the impermanence and pain of defiled worlds and to strive for Nirvana.”
And that’s just in the Wiki overview of his day-to-day life. For the real juicy stuff, I offer Miracles of Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia
facepalm Oh wait a second, somehow brain thought Hinduism, fingers typed Sikhism…
Let me see if I can find anything on Hinduism. grumble grumble
Hindus believe that Krishna was a real, historical person, but it should also be remembered that “Hinduism” is an umbrella term for what is really a family of religions and traditions, not a single, homogenous doctrine.
(bolding mine)
I’m sorry, but this is just odd.
You are using a 98 year old encyclopedia entry to claim to refute modern scholarship and making the claim that the modern scholarship is “outdated.”
I have and will continue to defend the Catholic Encyclopedia compiled between 1909 and 1920 as a good faith effort to provide accurate encyclopedic information as it was understood in the second decade of the twentieth century. However, the nature of an encyclopedia is to provide a “popular” synopsis of generally agreed upon information, not to examine primary sources and evaluate them for accuracy. As a testament to generally believed information in 1910, (the year that article was written), your link is probably a good guide. As a source of “new” or “better” information in the early 21st century, it is useless.
Right, Hinudism. So yes, it formed out of tradition, but the Wikipedia page does list three important guys in the religion:
Ramanuja lived to be 120 years old.
“Followers of Ramanuja relate the legend that three fingers of Yamunacharya’s corpse were curled. Ramanuja saw this and understood that Yamunacharya was concerned about three tasks. Ramanuja vowed to complete these […] Legend goes that on hearing the vow, the three fingers on the corpse straightened.”
“Bittideva converted to Srivaishanavism, in some legends after Ramanuja cured his daughter of evil spirits”
“The preceptor Acyuta-Preksha gave the boy [Madhvacharya] the name of ‘Purnaprajna’ at the time of his initiation into sanyasa. A little over a month later, little Purnaprajna is said to have defeated a group of expert scholars of Tarka(logic) headed by Vasudeva-pandita.”
"On the way, [Madhvacharya] had to cross the River Ganga. The other bank was then under the rule of a Muslim king. Unmindful of the threats of the Muslim soldiers against crossing the river, the Acharya boldly crossed the river and reached the other bank. He was taken before the Muslim ruler who was taken aback at the boldness of the ascetic. The Acharya said: ‘I worship that Father who illumines the entire universe; and so do you. Why should I fear then either your soldiers or you?’.
Hearing such words, the Muslim king was greatly impressed. He was filled with reverence for this unique monk. He made offers of several gifts and riches which Madhva politely declined and continued on his way to Badri."
“[Chaitanya’s] line of followers, known as Gaudiya Vaishnavas, revere him as an avatar of Krishna in the mood of Radharani who was prophesised [sic] to appear in the later verses of the Bhagavata Purana.”
More on this is at Chaitanya Bhagavata - Wikipedia “The Chaitanya Bhagavata (similarly to the Chaitanya Charitamrita) asserts that Chaitanya was not simply a saint or even a ‘regular’ avatara, but was instead the direct incarnation of Krishna as Bhagavan, or the Supreme God himself.” (bolding added)
I suspect that if I actually went through the works that describe these men’s lives, rather than the Wikipedia articles, there would be plenty of stuff that seems quite magical.
I had a premonition that if I was to type “miracle mao zedong” into Google, it would reveal wonders.
And it did indeed do so: Cult of the chairman | China | The Guardian
People come up with mystical shit. Proving this is not difficult. Proving that Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion’s miraculous tales are above any of these or above any of the other religions, is a task of nitpicking minutiae so small that if there is a God, he’d throw his hands up and stomp out of the room.
Uhh, Lysanias and Lysanias?
Well, if they weren’t “God fearing”, that sounds like a good way to put the Fear of God into them. And that whole Pauline thing about women keeping their big yaps shut while the men decide the important stuff…yeah, that’ll go over real big here in America. “Barefoot and pregnant!”, definitely the rallying cry of post-modernist feminism. Bound to be a big hit.
Cite?
Even more so than Christianity you mean, since it has lots of doctrines and traditions that vary from denomination to denomination as well?
It was relevant enough for DtC to post "Why would he have to? What information would he gain by interviewing him that would change any of the factual evidence?" which is what and whom my post was in reply to.
I am presenting opposing views- to you and your cites. Or do you somehow think I can only agree with your opposing view?
Strobel seems reliable (but I admit he seems biased), however your cite attempting to show how unreliable Strobel is weak and pointless. If I write a book propounding a point, I am under no obligation to give the other side refutation time in my book.
Even more so, yes. Christianity at least has a core doctrine and a consistent focus of worship. Hindu traditions vary as to which gods are worshipped, how they’re worshipped or whether they’re worshipped at all. The practices range from devotional worship of a given god or combination of gods to non-devotional, meditative practices similar to Zen Buddhism.