Who do you think Jesus was

robindch

Donatello wrote: »

Why would his early followers have allowed themselves to be put to death for a myth?

Probably the same reason that the folks whom I spoke with in North Korea said they'd be happy to die for the cause of DPRK communism.

Are you saying that people wanting to die for some idea is sure proof that the idea is true? Or does it suggest that the people are nuts?

oldrnwisr

Donatello wrote: »

Why would his early followers have allowed themselves to be put to death for a myth?

Asked and answered and answered again and again.

Donatello wrote: »

They knew Jesus, walked with Him, ate with Him after His resurrection, and then allowed themselves to be martyred. The success of this early Christian movement shows that something very powerful happened.

Based on?

Donatello wrote: »

I don't know about any other Christians, but if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then, as St. Paul said, this is one big waste of time, our faith is in vain and we are the most pitiable of men.

Now you're getting it.

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

Why would his early followers have allowed themselves to be put to death for a myth?

Same reason any cult members allow themselves to be put to death for a myth. Look at something like Jonestown.

Why would early Christianity be any different?

Zombrex

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Asked and answered and answered again and again.

+1

One really can't help but think that a lot of the basis of Christianity is just naive people believing naive stories.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Same reason any cult members allow themselves to be put to death for a myth. Look at something like Jonestown.

Why would early Christianity be any different?

This has been explained to you serveral times WN. The difference is that the apostles would have been dying for WHAT THEY KNEW TO BE A LIE. A suicide bomber, a cult member, a kamikaze pilot etc, die for a belief. The apostles would have known that their stories were lies, so would have gone to their death for something they knew was a steaming pile. That, is highly unlikely. So from that perspective, the evidence would suggest that they certainly believed they saw the risen Christ, as well as all the signs they both seen and performed.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

This has been explained to you serveral times WN. The difference is that the apostles would have been dying for WHAT THEY KNEW TO BE A LIE. A suicide bomber, a cult member, a kamikaze pilot etc, die for a belief. The apostles would have known that their stories were lies, so would have gone to their death for something they knew was a steaming pile. That, is highly unlikely. So from that perspective, the evidence would suggest that they certainly believed they saw the risen Christ, as well as all the signs they both seen and performed.

This assumes that the apostles wrote the gospels as they currently are now. Oldrnwisr is showing this not to be the case.

Secondly, and this too has been explained to you before, the apostles could absolutely have been making it all up, then be caught and kill only to have the story of that, altered and embellished after the fact to make it appear like they were brave pious martyrs.

Also it's possible that they were lying about all the magic stuff to help spread a moral message they felt strongly in.

Or they could have just been duped by a cult leader.

b318isp

JimiTime wrote: »

This has been explained to you serveral times WN. The difference is that the apostles would have been dying for WHAT THEY KNEW TO BE A LIE. A suicide bomber, a cult member, a kamikaze pilot etc, die for a belief. The apostles would have known that their stories were lies, so would have gone to their death for something they knew was a steaming pile. That, is highly unlikely. So from that perspective, the evidence would suggest that they certainly believed they saw the risen Christ, as well as all the signs they both seen and performed.

For my own education, what is the view on the possibility that Jesus did NOT die on the cross? That he somehow survived and recovered after three days?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

A suicide bomber, a cult member, a kamikaze pilot etc, die for a belief.

And -- assuming for the moment that the gospel accounts are accurate -- the apostles would have died in the belief that they were going to go to heaven after they died.

It's all just people getting themselves killed in the service of beliefs.

JimiTime

b318isp wrote: »

For my own education, what is the view on the possibility that Jesus did NOT die on the cross? That he somehow survived and recovered after three days?

I don't really know anything about this premise. I can't see such a thing being posited outside of the realm of naturalism I.E. Positing that Jesus could NOT have done what is apportioned to him, so it must have been........etc. I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that this occurred.

robindch wrote: »

And -- assuming for the moment that the gospel accounts are accurate -- the apostles would have died in the belief that they were going to go to heaven after they died.

It's all just people getting themselves killed in the service of beliefs.

No, the apostles would have been getting killed for something they DIDN'T actually believe, as they would have known it to be a lie which they themselves were making up. As i said, THATS the key difference. People die, for things they believe in, be they actually true or not. That is not in dispute. People, would not really be known for dying for things they KNOW is a lie.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

No, the apostles would have been getting killed for something they DIDN'T actually believe, as they would have known it to be a lie which they themselves were making up.

I'm talking about the apostles believing that they were going to heaven.

Are you saying that they didn't believe they were going there?

robindch

robindch wrote: »

I'm talking about the apostles believing that they were going to heaven.

Are you saying that they didn't believe they were going there?

He's insisting on the false dichotomy that they either saw and believed it or they entirely made it up by them. He argues that since no one would die for something they made up the latter cannot be true.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

I'm talking about the apostles believing that they were going to heaven.

Are you saying that they didn't believe they were going there?

If they made up the resurrection story , then they certainly WOULD NOT believe, as they would have known that they were lying. Thats what makes it different from a suicide bomber etc. If the apostles were wrong, they were weren't simply wrong, they were knowingly lying. As I said, there is no argument againt the fact that people die for what they believe in, be it false or true. But multiples of people knowingly dying for a lie is what the apostles were doing if the accusation of porkies is made. So if we are saying that the apostles died for a belief, then that belief is that they witnessed the risen Jesus, experienced the signs he performed, and performed great signs themselves. If the accusation is that the apostles lied, then we must then say that the apostles knowingly died for a lie and NOT a belief.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

If the accusation is that the apostles lied, then we must then say that the apostles knowingly died for a lie and NOT a belief.

I'm not sure that I'm being quite crystally clear enough. There are two beliefs here:

1. They believed that they saw Jesus come back to life having been executed by the Romans.
2. The apostles believed that they were going to live forever because Jesus told them so.

You are assuming that because (1) is true, that (2) must be true. That this assumption holds true is a belief.

Therefore, they died for a belief.

philologos

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Asked and answered and answered again and again.

Answered badly multiple times on this forum. There is no decent reason why they would go out and risk their lives if they didn't genuinely believe in it. There was zero benefit in doing so. I suspect they did believe in it, that leaves us two possibilities left : 1) deluded, 2) telling the truth. Actually these 2 factors are also the two possibilities in terms of my faith as well. I could be deluded, or I could be testifying to truth.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

Answered badly multiple times on this forum. There is no decent reason why they would go out and risk their lives if they didn't genuinely believe in it. There was zero benefit in doing so. I suspect they did believe in it, that leaves us two possibilities left : 1) deluded, 2) telling the truth.

Those are the only two options? And how do we know they weren't deluded?

philologos

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Those are the only two options?

There may be more, but they are the only two that seem reasonable as far as I can see it.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

And how do we know they weren't deluded?

I'm not even arguing this at present. I'm accepting the possibility that they were. All I was looking to gain from this discussion is the acknowledgement that it is incredibly unlikely that people would be motivated to die for what they knew for a lie given that there was nothing to be gained from it.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

There may be more, but they are the only two that seem reasonable as far as I can see it.



I'm not even arguing this at present. I'm accepting the possibility that they were. All I'm looking to gain from this discussion is the acknowledgement that it is incredibly unlikely that people would be motivated to die for what they knew for a lie given that there was nothing to be gained from it.

I imagine you dont have the same faith as muslim suicide bombers so...

I have no idea where this argument is going. People being willing to die for something has absolutely no bearing on whether that something is true or not, and that is that.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

I imagine you dont have the same faith as muslim suicide bombers so...

Do those suicide bombers believe that they are dying for a lie? - I haven't said anything about people dying for what they believe in. I'm saying that if the disciples didn't believe in the Gospel that there would have been absolutely no gain in risking their lives for a lie. This has nothing to do with dying for ones beliefs.

The Mad Hatter

I don't think anyone is arguing that they died for something they didn't believe was true...

philologos

The Mad Hatter - Read the thread. People have suggested that this was a possibility albeit probably a good few pages ago now. The idea that the disciples made up Christianity and then went out and told it was mentioned in the thread.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

This has been explained to you serveral times WN. The difference is that the apostles would have been dying for WHAT THEY KNEW TO BE A LIE. A suicide bomber, a cult member, a kamikaze pilot etc, die for a belief.

You seem to be unfamiliar with Jonestown.

Jim Jones shot himself in the head. He also ordered that all his followers kill themselves. His closest lieutenants, who helped him fake his healing sessions, killed their families and then themselves.

The idea that the apostles would not have allowed themselves to be killed for something they (at some point) knew was not true is unsupported by human psychology.

It is debatable whether the apostles knew it was a lie or not, but it is not in anyway unreasonable to suggest that they would have died for that lie.

JimiTime wrote: »

The apostles would have known that their stories were lies, so would have gone to their death for something they knew was a steaming pile.

Correct. Christians talk about that as if it could never happen. In reality it happens all the time in cults an other similar organisation. It happens for various reasons, from guilt of admitting the truth publicly, to the persons mind simply being all over the place and them eventually ending up believing the lie they started (such seems to be the case with Jones)

JimiTime wrote: »

That, is highly unlikely.

No actually it is not. What is more unlikely would have been if they had declared it was all fake.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Answered badly multiple times on this forum. There is no decent reason why they would go out and risk their lives if they didn't genuinely believe in it.

If that was true there would never be another cult.

I can't believe you and Jimi are so naive with this stuff. Have you never studied, even just superficially, what goes on in cults such as Jonestown?

It is plausible that the apostles, stricken with grief would have imagined, embellished or even out right lied about seeing Jesus alive after his death.

It is plausible that they would have come to believe these stories as if they really happened, and happily faced death because of this belief.

It is even plausible that they would have continued to rationally know that these stories were fibs and happily faced death rather than admit the truth, either to others or to themselves.

All these alternatives are not only plausible but are supported by examples in other cults.

In fact the least likely outcome based on how people are in cults is that they aposels would have admitted it was all nonsense, Jesus died and they stole the body or what ever actually happened.

Jakkass wrote: »

There was zero benefit in doing so.

What was the benefit of Jim Jones blowing his head off in South America?

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I don't think anyone is arguing that they died for something they didn't believe was true...

It is not been argued specifically. What is being argued is the position Jakkass and Jimitime are putting forward which says this simply would not have happened. That position is, frankly, nonsense. There are numerous examples of the actual cult leader himself (ie the one person who must know or have known that it was a lie) suiciding himself or putting himself in a position to die rather than simply stop and admit it was all made up.

The example I'm using (perhaps unhelpfully since neither Jimi nor Jakkass seem that familiar with it) is Jim Jones, who decided that rather than allow his church and plantation to be split up he would order his followers to kill themselves before taking a gun and shooting himself in the head.

Jones, and his closest followers, must have, at some point, known that they were making stuff up. Jones used to get is followers to help him con people at his healing sessions.

Jakass asks what was the benefit of the apostles letting themselves die rather than admit the truth. Well what was the benefit of what Jim Jones died?

Rationally there was no benefit. But who said anything about rationality, this is religion we are talking about here :P

philologos

Wicknight - I've explained rather simply how the circumstances clearly differ from a suicide cult, but if you want to continue being patently dishonest that's up to you I guess

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not been argued specifically. What is being argued is the position Jakkass and Jimitime are putting forward which says this simply would not have happened. That position is, frankly, nonsense. There are numerous examples of the actual cult leader himself (ie the one person who must know or have known that it was a lie) suiciding himself or putting himself in a position to die rather than simply stop and admit it was all made up.

The example I'm using (perhaps unhelpfully since neither Jimi nor Jakkass seem that familiar with it) is Jim Jones, who decided that rather than allow his church and plantation to be split up he would order his followers to kill themselves before taking a gun and shooting himself in the head.

Jones, and his closest followers, must have, at some point, known that they were making stuff up. Jones used to get is followers to help him con people at his healing sessions.

Jakass asks what was the benefit of the apostles letting themselves die rather than admit the truth. Well what was the benefit of what Jim Jones died?

Rationally there was no benefit. But who said anything about rationality, this is religion we are talking about here :P

What can be interesting about these people is that they often believe in spite of the fact that they're frauds. This is something I saw in the documentary Marjoe - Marjoe himself didn't believe, but several of the other preachers who he spoke to clearly did. All of them used the same hucksterish techniques to leverage money out of their congregations.

It's something you can see in the kind of sad people who apply for the James Randi prize. I don't think it's likely many people would kill themselves or die for something they didn't believe in, but I'm pretty sure some people can convince themselves to believe in anything, to the point of being willing to die for it.

I've posited several theories in which the Apostles both make everything up yet also die for them. They have been ignored.

1. The Apostles genuinely believed in the moral message of an ordinary preacher (or even just the message itself) and created stories of the miracles to help spread the message more convincingly.
2. The Apostles' death aren't as reported. They were caught and punished for their cult and only became brave, pious martyrs after the fact when the story was spun by the other apostles or by genuine believers.

philologos

King Mob - The problem with the first is that Christian morality is centred around the Resurrection, and indeed before that the Fall.

Christians believe that it is because of the sin of mankind that the world needs a Saviour. God in the beginning created the world and He gave us standards for our own benefit to live by, we in our selfishness rejected God, and rejected His standard. We are liable to His punishment for neglecting His authority in His world. We have all done this. Therefore we are all liable to His punishment. Jesus in coming into the world, lived a perfect live, and died the death we deserved to die in order that we might be able to start afresh and be forgiven. Christian morality is centred around the idea that we can now aim to be as we were in the beginning, striving each and every day towards God's standards because Jesus has made the way for us to be reconciled with God again.

Without this, there isn't such a thing as Christian ethics which is centred around the being of God Himself. Without grace, mercy and forgiveness at the centre we are doomed to trying to construct an inadequate form of I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine ethics. We ignore the actual problem in a sense from a Christian point of view.

Zillah

I utterly fail to see why the apostles' willingness to die for their beliefs says anything about how likely those beliefs are to be true. I've seen the absurd gymnastics that the average believer today can put their brains through, I can only imagine the ruination of the mind in someone who believes they studied under the personification of the creator of the universe.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob - The problem with the first is that Christian morality is centred around the Resurrection, and indeed before that the Fall.

Christians believe that it is because of the sin of mankind that the world needs a Saviour. God in the beginning created the world and He gave us standards for our own benefit to live by, we in our selfishness rejected God, and rejected His standard. We are liable to His punishment for neglecting His authority in His world. We have all done this. Therefore we are all liable to His punishment. Jesus in coming into the world, lived a perfect live, and died the death we deserved to die in order that we might be able to start afresh and be forgiven. Christian morality is centred around the idea that we can now aim to be as we were in the beginning, striving each and every day towards God's standards because Jesus has made the way for us to be reconciled with God again.

Without this, there isn't such a thing as Christian ethics which is centred around the being of God Himself. Without grace, mercy and forgiveness at the centre we are doomed to trying to construct an inadequate form of I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine ethics. We ignore the actual problem in a sense from a Christian point of view.

That's great and all Jakkass, but all that is after the fact. That faff is all based on reasoning made by people other than the apostles well well after the resurrection.
It doesn't discount that the apostles simply made up the resurrection.
Nor does it account for some of the Christians I know who do not believe the resurrection is important.

And how do you account for the second scenario?

The Mad Hatter

King Mob wrote: »

I've posited several theories in which the Apostles both make everything up yet also die for them. They have been ignored.

1. The Apostles genuinely believed in the moral message of an ordinary preacher (or even just the message itself) and created stories of the miracles to help spread the message more convincingly.
2. The Apostles' death aren't as reported. They were caught and punished for their cult and only became brave, pious martyrs after the fact when the story was spun by the other apostles or by genuine believers.

The first of those doesn't seem particularly convincing. We get the occasional sceptic on here even who posits that there is a moral lesson to be gained from religion, even if they don't believe in religion themselves, but these people tend to be pretty watery in their beliefs, and don't generally hold out for very long.

The second is a fair argument, though. I think, given the rest of the bible (and many historical and religious documents), that there's fair precedent for embellishment and making things up after the fact.

philologos

Zillah - I haven't even said that.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

Nor does it account for some of the Christians I know who do not believe the resurrection is important.

Interesting that you say that but I think you'd agree that the Resurrection is clearly very central to the Christian message even if it is a load of twaddle. I would question as to what degree one could legitimately believe in it otherwise.

The Mad Hatter

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The first of those doesn't seem particularly convincing. We get the occasional sceptic on here even who posits that there is a moral lesson to be gained from religion, even if they don't believe in religion themselves, but these people tend to be pretty watery in their beliefs, and don't generally hold out for very long.

Well the first one doesn't depend on the moral lesson being very good, just that the apostles believe in it enough so they feel it's worth lying a little to spread it.

Of course it could be the case were they were giving the stories of allegory to help people understand the moral lessons only to become taken as actual events.
For example, the apostles wish to explain that by loving and giving into God you can find a spiritual rebirth (you know like the "spiritual death" in the garden of eden). So to illustrate this they make a story (or embellish a true one) where their preacher character is put to death, but by giving into God gains rebirth. And this eventually becomes an actually rebirth rather than a spiritual one in later, second hand retellings.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting that you say that but I think you'd agree that the Resurrection is clearly very central to the Christian message even if it is a load of twaddle. I would question as to what degree one could legitimately believe in it otherwise.

http://neverfeltbetter.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/the-teachings-are-the-important-part/

Jakkass, why are you dodging the other questions?
Come on man, you're better than those tactics.

strobe

Zillah wrote: »

I utterly fail to see why the apostles' willingness to die for their beliefs says anything about how likely those beliefs are to be true. I've seen the absurd gymnastics that the average believer today can put their brains through, I can only imagine the ruination of the mind in someone who believes they studied under the personification of the creator of the universe.

Jakkass wrote: »

Zillah - I haven't even said that.

Lol what?

You never stop saying it ye big mad Christian bastard.

Jesus...:pac:

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

Answered badly multiple times on this forum.

Just because your faith requires you to discount those answers doesn't make them bad, just bad news for your chosen mythology.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no decent reason why they would go out and risk their lives if they didn't genuinely believe in it.

First of all, those who died may in fact have genuinely believed it. The fact that the story is untrue is not connected to whether people believe it or not. After all, we tell children that Santa Claus exists and they wholeheartedly believe it even though we know it's not true.

Jakkass wrote: »

There was zero benefit in doing so.

Really? Have you not heard of martyrdom? The benefit for them was that they are remembered as martyrs, holy warriors. The benefit for the mythology is 2.2 billion followers and 15 billion dollars in the bank with no taxes to pay. [1] [2]

Jakkass wrote: »

I suspect they did believe in it, that leaves us two possibilities left : 1) deluded, 2) telling the truth. Actually these 2 factors are also the two possibilities in terms of my faith as well. I could be deluded, or I could be testifying to truth.

Well, I wouldn't agree completely that those are the only possibilities, but for the sake of argument let's go with them. The only way to decide between delusion and truth is to examine the evidence. The evidence, such as it is, is stacked in favour of delusion.

We have numerous examples of people dying for cult leaders : Jonestown, Waco, Heaven's Gate, Order of the Solar Temple.

We have numerous examples of self-declared messiahs such as Claude Vorilhon, David Icke, Apollo Quiboloy etc.

We have numerous examples of resurrection stories from other mythologies such as Odin or Quetzlcoatl.

We have numerous examples of people dying because of their belief in modern religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism and even Sikhism.

We don't have any physical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus as Christians believe it. We don't have any contemporary accounts of the resurrection. We have no extra-biblical evidence for the resurrection.

On this basis, I think that delusion is not only a plausible choice but a probable one.

On a personal note, I don't think there is necessarily any sinister motive involved in the creation of the Christian message. I think that it is possible that a real person named Jesus (well, actually more likely Yeshua) existed and preached a message of forgiveness which ran counter to contemporary religious teaching. I think it's likely that he was executed for challenging the religious establishment. However, I think that the aspects of the story which elevate him from philosopher to supernatural being are stories borrowed from other contemporary or older mythologies as a means of communicating and in some ways reinforcing the core teachings of Jesus.

philologos

I wish people would actually respond to what I'm saying:

1) I'm not saying the death of the Apostles makes Christianity more true.
2) I'm not saying that they couldn't have for what is false.
3) I have said that it is extremely unlikely if the Apostles knew / believed that Christianity was a lie that they would go to the lengths that they did.

The above post deals with dying for what one actually believes rather than dying while knowing full well those beliefs are false.

I don't see the point in posting if you're going to twist what's been said.

As for posting about suicide cults, as I've explained already they have zero comparison with the situation in the New Testament church.

The Vatican has no bearing on what the early Christians did. There is no evidence for financial gain from looking to early church history. The RCC didn't even exist until the 4th century.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I wish people would actually respond to what I'm saying:

I know how you feel, what with you ignoring my points and all.

philologos

King Mob: There's not much point in even attempting if people cannot even understand what at the most rudimentary level I'm arguing.

Besides I'll more than likely go back to them inbetween sorting out some PHP stuff for my CS project.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

2. The Apostles' death aren't as reported. They were caught and punished for their cult and only became brave, pious martyrs after the fact when the story was spun by the other apostles or by genuine believers.

Looking to the second: This is only if one doesn't agree that there is actually historical basis for the martyrdom of the Apostles. What reasoning would you have to suggest that we don't?

In terms of ecclesiastical history there is much that would tell us about how many of the Apostles died. Indeed some non-ecclesiastical history too.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob: There's not much point in even attempting if people cannot even understand what at the most rudimentary level I'm arguing.

I'm sorry Jakkass that explanation simply is beneath you and doesn't excuse the fact you ignored my point and failed to explain why.
Seriously, I've lost a deal of respect for you because you've engaged in such tactics.

Jakkass wrote: »

Looking to the second: This is only if one doesn't agree that there is actually historical basis for the martyrdom of the Apostles. What reasoning would you have to suggest that we don't?

In terms of ecclesiastical history there is much that would tell us about how many of the Apostles died. Indeed some non-ecclesiastical history too.

And there's historical sources about how L. Ron Hubbard died, which confirm the Church of Scientology's belief that he simply went off to do research on the non-physical plane, right?

So do the non-ecclesiastical sources confirm all the details of the martyrdoms the bible has?
What about their martyrdoms exclude the possibility that they have been embellished or spun?

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

I'm sorry Jakkass that explanation simply is beneath you and doesn't excuse the fact you ignored my point and failed to explain why.
Seriously, I've lost a deal of respect for you because you've engaged in such tactics.

I've addressed your second point so I don't see what your issue is? It is still a little absurd that some on the thread don't see that I'm not claiming that martyrdom = truth. But rather that people who patently disbelieve in something do not generally go out into a severely hostile world and risk their lives for something false. There's no benefit in it. Even the Branch Davidians couldn't really say that they lived in a hostile society, they had the liberty to practice freely in a secular State as the USA is.

You had respect for me? wow RLY? :pac:

But really, sorry for only looking at it in part first.

King Mob wrote: »

And there's historical sources about how L. Ron Hubbard died, which confirm the Church of Scientology's belief that he simply went off to do research on the non-physical plane, right?

I would be very surprised if the Church of Scientology didn't have at least some point of reference to history whether legitimate or illegitimate.

King Mob wrote: »

So do the non-ecclesiastical sources confirm all the details of the martyrdoms the bible has?
What about their martyrdoms exclude the possibility that they have been embellished or spun?

No, nor does the Bible cover all the martyrdoms of the Apostles mentioned externally. We don't even need the Bible to look into how hostile the society was to Christians. We don't need the Bible to tell us that there were many Christian martyrs either.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I would be very surprised if the Church of Scientology didn't have at least some point of reference to history whether legitimate or illegitimate.

So you understand how a real event can be spun by believers and cult leaders to support their cult beliefs.

Jakkass wrote: »

No, nor does the Bible cover all the martyrdoms of the Apostles mentioned externally.

So then do you specifically exclude the possibility that the deaths of the apostles weren't spun after the fact to suit the cult's needs?

Jakkass wrote: »

We don't even need the Bible to look into how hostile the society was to Christians. We don't need the Bible to tell us that there were many Christian martyrs either.

That's great and all, but we've shown you plenty of examples of people expressing beliefs you think are false in similar conditions.
You're referring to the Apostles specifically.
I'm pretty sure the government were out to get Jim Jones, David Koresh and
L. Ron Hubbard and yet these fellas went out despite the dangers to themselves and preached their beliefs.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

So you understand how a real event can be spun by believers and cult leaders to support their cult beliefs.

Definitely. I just believe that there is good historical reason to believe in the fact that Christians were martyred for their faith, and that Roman society was hostile towards Christians. That's all I need to assume that there was a huge risk in what the Apostles did for rather little gain. I don't have to re-write history in order to believe that Roman society was hostile towards early Christians because it's factually the case.

We're not even at the point to say that the Gospel isn't a load of twaddle because it may be out of delusion.

I think that we have a long way to go before anyone could say that the Apostles genuinely just contrived Christianity while knowing very clearly that it was a lie. Delusion seems more likely than this possibility.


So then do you specifically exclude the possibility that the deaths of the apostles weren't spun after the fact to suit the cult's needs?

King Mob wrote: »

That's great and all, but we've shown you plenty of examples of people expressing beliefs you think are false in similar conditions.
You're referring to the Apostles specifically.
I'm pretty sure the government were out to get Jim Jones, David Koresh and
L. Ron Hubbard and yet these fellas went out despite the dangers to themselves and preached their beliefs.

Jim Jones and David Koresh are not valid comparisons as I've mentioned pretty clearly quite a few times now. L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology cannot be adequately compared. It seems that you're underestimating the actual environment in the Roman Empire at that time. Unless you can present logic as to why this is the case. Then I'm all eyes :pac:

Postit

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well, he was a picker, a grinner, a lover and a sinner and he played music in the sun. He was a joker, a smoker, a mid-night toker and got his lovin' on the run. Some people even call him the space cowboy yeah.

I thought some people called Jesus, Maurice?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Definitely. I just believe that there is good historical reason to believe in the fact that Christians were martyred for their faith, and that Roman society was hostile towards Christians. That's all I need to assume that there was a huge risk in what the Apostles did for rather little gain. I don't have to re-write history in order to believe that Roman society was hostile towards early Christians because it's factually the case.

We're not even at the point to say that the Gospel isn't a load of twaddle because it may be out of delusion.

I think that we have a long way to go before anyone could say that the Apostles genuinely just contrived Christianity while knowing very clearly that it was a lie. Delusion seems more likely than this possibility.

Again you're assuming that there isn't anything to gain. There's plenty of ways for a cult like that to make profit, and all you have to say otherwise, is that it's not mentioned in the bible.

Jakkass wrote: »

So then do you specifically exclude the possibility that the deaths of the apostles weren't spun after the fact to suit the cult's needs?

I don't, but lacking any evidence to the contrary and basic observation of how social groups work, it's a high probability. About as equal to the probability of the apostles being deluded or duped, but far far far more probable than magic happening.

Jakkass wrote: »

Jim Jones and David Koresh are not valid comparisons as I've mentioned pretty clearly quite a few times now. L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology cannot be adequately compared. It seems that you're underestimating the actual environment in the Roman Empire at that time. Unless you can present logic as to why this is the case. Then I'm all eyes :pac:

It is a fair comparison as all those leaders told their followers that they were being targeted by the governments at the time and all of them fell afoul of the law on many occasions, especially Koresh.
Different scale, but same bull**** really.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

Again you're assuming that there isn't anything to gain. There's plenty of ways for a cult like that to make profit, and all you have to say otherwise, is that it's not mentioned in the bible.

What basis do we have to assume this was the case in the early New Testament church?

King Mob wrote: »

I don't, but lacking any evidence to the contrary and basic observation of how social groups work, it's a high probability. About as equal to the probability of the apostles being deluded or duped, but far far far more probable than magic happening.

Just to say the piece you are responding to here is just a section of your previous post that I missed when I was putting in the quote tags, but you raised an interesting point.

I'm doubting that it is really equal, there are many reasons to say that it wouldn't be equal. Much of which seem to be falling on deaf ears. Why would you go out into the world and risk your life if you could just go back to your stable fishing career in Galilee exactly where you started.

As for your mention of magic. Miracles differ from magic in that magicians claim that the power is their own, miracles are generally claimed to be performed by God rather than man. And yes, I believe miracles are possible if God exists. If God doesn't exist then it's bloody ridiculous and I recognise that :pac:

King Mob wrote: »

It is a fair comparison as all those leaders told their followers that they were being targeted by the governments at the time and all of them fell afoul of the law on many occasions, especially Koresh.
Different scale, but same bull**** really.

Falling foul of the law != being put to death by the State just because you believed what you did. Again, severely underestimating the scenario of the New Testament church.

jc bamford

Kristofferson

Jesus was a Capricorn, he ate organic foods.
He believed in love and peace and never wore no shoes.
Long hair, beard and sandals and a funky bunch of friends.
Reckon they'd just nail him up if He come down again.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

What basis do we have to assume this was the case in the early New Testament church?

I'm not assuming anything. I'm stating there are many ways to make a profit in a cult like that, which there are. And if there's ways to make a profit of some kind, they have a reason to lie.
Now how are you so sure that they couldn't have been making money from it?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm doubting that it is really equal, there are many reasons to say that it wouldn't be equal. Much of which seem to be falling on deaf ears. Why would you go out into the world and risk your life if you could just go back to your stable fishing career in Galilee exactly where you started.

Several reasons which we've be repeating but you've been fobbing off.
They were always lying and were caught only to have their story embellished.
They started to believe their own ****.
They truly believed in the message but felt the supernatural stuff was needed to sell it to people.

All of these have modern day examples

Jakkass wrote: »

As for your mention of magic. Miracles differ from magic in that magicians claim that the power is their own, miracles are generally claimed to be performed by God rather than man. And yes, I believe miracles are possible if God exists. If God doesn't exist then it's bloody ridiculous and I recognise that :pac:

I use magic to denote anything supernatural be it gods or fairies or psychic waves. It's all the same.

Jakkass wrote: »

Falling foul of the law != being put to death by the State just because you believed what you did. Again, severely underestimating the scenario of the New Testament church.

Dude, David Koresh's compound was burnt down. The American government were going to come down hard on Jim Jones. L Ron's wife was arrested by the government.
All because "they believed in what they did."

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not assuming anything. I'm stating there are many ways to make a profit in a cult like that, which there are. And if there's ways to make a profit of some kind, they have a reason to lie.
Now how are you so sure that they couldn't have been making money from it?

I believe that some of them were financially supported. Paul particularly mentions that he was financially supported by the church at Thessalonica out of their own charity but not out of him requesting it. He also mentions that he had times with little. Indeed, he also writes that although he didn't expect to get paid he argues that there is no reason why ministers shouldn't receive a salary for what they do (1 Corinthians 9). There is simply no evidence that the Apostles were like megachurch pastors though.

King Mob wrote: »

Several reasons which we've be repeating but you've been fobbing off.
They were always lying and were caught only to have their story embellished.
They started to believe their own ****.
They truly believed in the message but felt the supernatural stuff was needed to sell it to people.

I'm not "fobbing them off" per sé. I'm just suggesting that they aren't likely.

King Mob wrote: »

I use magic to denote anything supernatural be it gods or fairies or psychic waves. It's all the same.

I don't think it is though. Magic has different implications.

King Mob wrote: »

Dude, David Koresh's compound was burnt down. The American government were going to come down hard on Jim Jones. L Ron's wife was arrested by the government.
All because "they believed in what they did."

What have I been arguing? I haven't been arguing that people can die for their faith. I have been arguing that it is extremely unlikely that people would put their lives to such extreme risk if they knew that it was a lie.

So by claiming that people die for their beliefs you're essentially backing up what I've been arguing all along.

As for David Koresh, sure you're right in the sense that the US Government came down on him. He had over $100,000 worth of weapons that he was intending to use if I remember correctly. There is nothing to suggest that first century Christianity was violent though.