Kosh

You missed the point. You're implying that somebody being willing to die for their beliefes is evidence. It is not.

Toto

Actually, it is a good analogy. Christian apologists use the "fact" that Christians were martyred as proof that they saw the resurrected Jesus.

Zeichman

How does this resolve the problem I pointed out? None of these terrorists claimed to have seen the virgins, as far as I know.

Additionally, I have never heard this argument used in the way you described. Paul is the only one who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus and was persecuted, from the evidence.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Whether or not Christianity is correct is not the question here. It's whether Paul believed himself to have experienced the risen Christ, whether or not it was a hallucination, the real thing, whatever... it how strongly one feels is only tangentially related, and it is being made the main point by Kosh's analogy.

Toto

Christian apologists use this argument about the early followers of Jesus, not Paul. They say, how could they die for a lie? But they have no evidence that any of the early Christian martyrs saw Jesus after the resurrection.

I have never heard the argument used for Paul, who never actually saw the earthly Jesus.

Doug Shaver

I don't know what you mean by "Christianity." There are quite a few versions of it out there. According to many of them, Jesus was the son of God who died and was resurrected to save the world from sin. Are you referring to that particular package of beliefs?

wakwak

I don't think it matters what the terrorist claim anymore. urban legend is more "believable" then the truth. All we need now is some islamic prophet to write these "facts" down some 70 years later.

-RRH-

Fine, how about Joseph Smith, who was arrested and shot to death by an angry mob. There's a lot of stuff he claimed to have seen.

cajela

I'm not a biblical scholar, but may I just say that I think Yahweh's question is a good one. AFAIK there's very good arguments for a mythical Jesus, but it's not a 100% scholarly consensus. So why not consider the "what ifs"? It might lead to some interesting arguments. Counterfactuals can be fun.

Chris Weimer

Actually, no. The used adjective from Paulus is Paulinus, not Paulianus, giving us Paulinitas or Paulinitiy. However, the Greek Paulismos is still perfectly acceptable.

Kosh

I'll stick with my version. It keeps the obvious play on the word Christianity, rolls of the tongue, and also brings to mind the stupid American opera (if you think opera sounds bad, it's worse in English!)