aa5874

Can you name a christian historian or apologist that claim Jesus is mythical? Simply, if most historians believe in Jesus and hope to meet him in heaven, they obviously would regard him as historical.

RPS

I know of no academic historian of any stripe who argues that Jesus wasn't an historical figure. However, non-Christian historians routinely do find an historical Jesus. So even were we to assume your unfair inference (that Christian academics would necessarily let their beliefs impact their scholarship) it doesn't get you anywhere.

JEST2ASK

I just wanted to highlight this again because I do not think that shome42 has adequately addressed this point ....

I have often seen the claim regarding the disciples but when looking for the basis of that claim find that documentaion is lacking :

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/h...ostles-faq.htm for example and Jeffrey, Grant R., "The Signature of God", Frontier Research Publications, Inc. (1996), p.254-257


Our present-day church doctrine is mainly taken from these early writings. But actual scientific evidence that the apostles existed and that the accounts of these 12 happened exactly as it is written in the Bible is much more difficult and is still being debated by some scholars today. There are many books out there on the subject of the apostles but it is difficult to tell where the author got his information..

The history of the apostles does start in the books of the Bible. The genealogies of the original 12 disciples of Jesus were most important to the scholars of the day. We have many other documents that were supposedly written about the same time as the Bible, but were not included in our modern day Bible. Some of these are 'Acts' of Paul, the 'Shepherd of Hermas,' 'Revelation of Peter,' 'Epistle of Barnabas,' 'Teachings of the Apostles,' and 'Revelation of John.


Another famous and well read church historian is Schumacher. He researched the lives of the apostles and recounted the history of their martyrdoms.
-----------------------------------------------------------

It seems a lot of modern christian writters (IMO - apologists) use that claim but it very well could be nothing more than a legend founded on folk tales ...

Interesting that in the bible there is no mention of those deaths yet questionable and even heratical writtings are used to validate the claim ...:huh:


Just thought I would add this the Holy Foreskin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

RAFH

I'll tell you right out, right here. Every day is a day of worship, especially for females. Males should worship by drinking beer and smoking cigars and watching Sesame Street though the latter is optional and for bonus points only. As for days of rest, whatever you can work out. If you can figure out how to get all days of rest, fine by me. Rest in peace. Or piece if you know what I mean. Heh heh. I really don't care if you work at all. Just don't come crying to me about paying your rent.

And since I can't drink, you should do so for me, sort of like that transubstantiation thing but in reverse or sideways or something.

Basic general rule: Respect.

Most important specific rule: Don't be a nuisance!

Otherwise, thank me and have a good one.

RAFH

Who's looking at you like anything. Hey, like I said, the Romans were very good at almost everything they did. They took stuff serious, they didn't fool around. If they wanted you to really suffer, they made sure you really suffered.

And they didn't have all the medical knowledge to figure this out, even more impressive. They had to do a lot of experimentation, fortunately they had plenty of lab xians to work with.

Koyaanisqatsi

You have a "high school" theology teacher? That alone is disturbing.

What does that mean? Did you ask? Explain what the term "professing their faith in him" means, as there is no evidence at all that I am aware of that any disciple was killed for believing that Jesus resurrected from the dead and since there is equally no evidence that I am aware of that any of the disciples believed Jesus to be Jehovah, merely the son of Jehovah, or a messiah sent by Jehovah, it is meaningless to say they were killed for "professing their faith in him."

The more likely scenario would be that they would be killed (if caught) because they were equivalent to terrorists to the Roman occupiers.

What is the lie? That they followed a leader who was captured, tried and crucified by the Romans for sedition against Rome, or that they followed a mythical being incarnated in flesh; an immortal who somehow died and then popped back to life again?

Which "Jesus story?" There are currently over 22,000 variations and those are just the "official" sects. Even the one commonly referred to as the "passion narrative" was clearly written by a Roman (or at least a Gentile) some forty years after any alleged events, has two conflicting variations and relates experiences that could not possibly have happened (such as the trial and, of course, the whole resurrection nonsense), so it is unquestionable that there are many Jesus stories that are fake (including one in which he came to America and burried a golden "book of mormon") and no such thing as "the whole Jesus story" as there is no one Jesus story.

Does it disturb you at all that your theology teacher (who is supposed to deal only in the holy truth of the ages) uses such pathetic tricks on you like this? Obviously any stories about what actually happened would come after it actually happened and since we know how humans are (particularly those caught up in a kind of fanatical devotion), we know that any actual facts no longer exist, other than what most likely would have happened.

For example, if such a person were crucified by the Romans, it would most likely be because they were either a murderer or a seditionist; the two most common applications of the use of crucifixion and certainly not because they were found completely innocent of all crimes, but Pilate was afraid he'd have a riot if he didn't do what the crowd of Jews he was there to subjugate was inexplicably threatening him to do during a ritual that never existed.

If Jesus existed and were crucified (and I see no reason to doubt either), the most likely reason would be because he was the leader of what the Romans would have considered a "terrorist" organization. Which also explains why he allegedly instructs his disciples that if the shit hits the fan, they should all leave their women and children behind and run like cowards and how they would be "persecuted" for knowing him. Of course they would be; they were seditionists.

That's the most likely, reality version of why any "followers" of Jesus might have been hunted down and killed, though, again, as others have pointed out, we have no reliable confirmation that this actually happened.

It also would explain, however, why they might have been killed "for their beliefs;" because what they believed in was sedition against their oppressor, so the first question I guess I would ask your teacher is what did a first century Roman think one of Jesus' alleged disciples was? A Jew? Certainly, no questioning that. A Jew who believed that Jesus was God? No evidence in the gospels that I know of confirms this, but even if it were true, why would any Roman kill a Jew who thought another Jew was their God?

Try thinking from the only perspective that matters in regard to the "disciples" being hunted down and killed; that from the hunter, the Romans. Would a Roman give one tiny shit about a small group of religious whackjobs who went around "professing their faith" that one of their dead Rabbis was actually their own resurrected God?

Do you give a shit about, say, twelve people you've never met or heard of who are right now in, say, Wyoming going around "professing their faith" in Bozo the Clown being their God?

The story only means something from the perspective of the cult; not from the perspective of anyone outside that cult and in 35 C.E. those who were supposedly inside the cult of Jesus meant about. let's say, twenty people. Those outside it? Millions.

:huh:

gracebkr

They also were not witness to what the disciples were. So therefore what 9/11 hijackers and others believed is from past down. The disciples were there, big difference.

David Vestal

Welcome to the thread, person who has not read the half-a-dozen or so posts pointing out that the very existence of the disciples is not evidenced.

Also, Koresh et al prove that within a few short years of a sect's birth, people can become so convinced by lies (or by a sufficiently charismatic, but otherwise perfectly ordinary, human) that they're willing to die for them.

David B

While all the ones I mentioned did die for lies, you are right that the 9/11 hijackers did not see Mohammed getting the message, allegedly, from Allah.

However - the followers of Sai Baba have, many of them, seen his alleged miracles, the followers of Jones knew Jones, the followers of Manson knew Manson, the early followers of Jo Smith knew Smith, many of the followers of Maharishi knew Maharishi, and were believers in spite of knowing them. And many others.

Not all of those who have died for lies personally knew, or could observe, the founder of their cults, and not all of those who follow cults to the point that they would honestly claim that they 'know' the cult is true have died for it.

However, if disciples of Jesus did die on the basis of their faith in Jesus, then that is far from unprecedented in the history of cults. That disciples of Jesus died (my working hypothesis is that some of them did) for their beliefs does not make the early church in any way special

You might address the whole of my posts, and not cherry pick the odd nit pick which makes no difference to the purport of what I was saying.

David B

TomboyMom

It is not clearly established whether Jesus existed or had disciples; there is no credible evidence that any disciples, if any, were martyred; if they were, we have no idea whether it was for professing their beliefs or not; people often die for false beliefs; people are often mistaken, particularly about religious experiences. Other than that, it's an outstanding argument, on par with most Christian apologetics.