Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Autonemesis · 05-01-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shome42

Yes, but there is a distinction. The 911 bombers didn't personally know Mohammed. Koresh never personally met God. Etc...

Then what about Joseph Smith? He was personally visited by God the Father and at His right hand, the Son Jesus Christ. Smith also was visited by many angels during the course of obtaining and translating the golden plates. Surely his relatively recent martyrdom in an American jail is far better documented than anything that happened 2000 years prior among bronze-age illiterates. With that kind of evidence and testimony, why aren't you a Mormon?

Godless Dave · 05-01-2007, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shome42

I took for granted that there was enough evidence to assume that the a guy named Jesus really existed,

A good bet IMHO

Quote:

Originally Posted by shome42

he really had a 12 man entourage,

He probably had an entourage of some sort; there's no way to say if it was really 12.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shome42

and that 12 man entourage really was killed for believing in Jesus.

There's no evidence whatsoever that that's the case.

Even if the Romans did execute some of Jesus's disciples - and we have no way of knowing they did - it doesn't mean they were executed for what they believed. They may well have been executed just for associating with Jesus.

Biff the unclean · 05-01-2007, 05:57 PM

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14658b.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholic Encyclopedia

This exhausts all our certain knowledge regarding the Apostle but his name is the starting point of a considerable apocryphal literature, and there are also certain historical data which suggest that some of this apocryphal material may contains germs of truth. The principal document concerning him is the "Acta Thomae", preserved to us with some variations both in Greek and in Syriac, and bearing unmistakeable signs of its Gnostic origin. It may indeed be the work of Bardesanes himself. The story in many of its particulars is utterly extravagant, but it is the early date, being assigned by Harnack (Chronologie, ii, 172) to the beginning of the third century, before A. D. 220. If the place of its origin is really Edessa, as Harnack and others for sound reasons supposed (ibid., p. 176), this would lend considerable probability to the statement, explicitly made in "Acta" (Bonnet, cap. 170, p.286), that the relics of Apostle Thomas, which we know to have been venerated at Edessa, had really come from the East. The extravagance of the legend may be judged from the fact that in more than one place (cap. 31, p. 148) it represents Thomas (Judas Thomas, as he is called here and elsewhere in Syriac tradition) as the twin brother of Jesus. The Thomas in Syriac is equivalant to didymos in Greek, and means twin. Rendel Harris who exaggerates very much the cult of the Dioscuri, wishes to regards this as a transformation of a pagan worship of Edessa but the point is at best problematical. The story itself runs briefly as follows: At the division of the Apostles, India fell to the lot of Thomas, but he declared his inability to go, whereupon his Master Jesus appeared in a supernatural way to Abban, the envoy of Gundafor, an Indian king, and sold Thomas to him to be his slave and serve Gundafor as a carpender. Then Abban and Thomas sailed away until they came to Andrapolis, where they landed and attended the marriage feast of the ruler's daughter. Strange occurences followed and Christ under the appearence of Thomas exhorted the bride to remain a Virgin. Coming to India Thomas undertook to build a palace for Gundafor, but spend the money entrusted to him on the poor. Gundafor imprisoned him; but the Apostle escaped miraculously and Gundafor was converted. Going about the country to preach, Thomas met with strange adventures from dragons and wild asses. Then he came to the city of King Misdai (Syriac Mazdai), where he converted Tertia the wife of Misdai and Vazan his son. After this he was condemed to death, led out of city to a hill, and pierced through with spears by four soldiers. He was buried in the tomb of the ancient kings but his remains were afterwards removed to the West.

Draconis · 05-01-2007, 06:32 PM

Obviously they didn't know it was a lie then. Or else they'd so convinced themselves it was true then even thinking about whether it was true or not was beyond them, wilfully or not.

And possibly they were killed by the romans without regard to whether it was true or not (I doubt they cared that much either way) but simply to shut them up so they didn't cause any more trouble.

RAFH · 05-01-2007, 06:41 PM

Nothing the least bit unbelievable about that story. It must be true. Where do I sign up?

Actually I think Peter was chickening out. The agonizing part of crucifixion is that when hanging like that you can breath and so you slowly asphyxiate. But its very, very slow. You tire of the pain of holding your self up so you can breath until you just can't anymore so you sag down and then start having difficulties breathing in sufficient air. The longer it goes on the greater the oxygen deficiency and eventually your body will spasm and pull yourself up despite the pain and the cycle starts over. One thing about those Romans, they were very thorough and when they did something, they bloody well did it right. No pussyfooting about. When they wanted to be nasty about something, they were very, very nasty about it.

Anyway, the upside down crucifixion wouldn't be that bad, you'd pass out pretty quick from the blood pressure on your brain and that'd be it. It might be uncomfortable but at least you could breath. But it does seem to be worse if you don't think it through. Which is a good reason to doubt the story, if the Romans wanted you to suffer, they made darn sure you were going to suffer.

RAFH · 05-01-2007, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shome42

I have no idea. I don't have the time or expertise to sift through all the information and conflicting "experts." I guess my question here assumes that Jesus existed, he had 12 apostles and they all died for believing in him. If we assume those things to be true, is there no rebuttal to the arguement?

My assumption is I am god and rule over everything. If you assume my assumption to be true there is no rebuttal to my assumption. So get down on your knees. Now! I am not kidding!

You are so going to hell man. I know Satan personally, in fact, he works for me, sort of. Its complicated. But believe you me, he will do me a favor, especially if it means he gets to torture someone gratuitously and with my blessing.

bekaybe · 05-01-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shome42

I have no idea. I don't have the time or expertise to sift through all the information and conflicting "experts." I guess my question here assumes that Jesus existed, he had 12 apostles and they all died for believing in him. If we assume those things to be true, is there no rebuttal to the arguement?

Lets assume David Koresh existed. Let's also assume that he had at least 75 followers following his particular brand of religion, all of whom died in a fire at a Waco Texas compound. In fact, let's not assume it, lets go a step further and call these things verified fact, since they are. If all those things are true, is there no rebuttal to the surviving Branch Davidians belief that that Koresh will someday return to Earth.

Of course there is a rebuttal. These people are bat-shit crazy.

This is fun:

Quote:

Some [survivors] hoped, based on Daniel 12:12, that this would occur 1,335 days after his death: December 14, 1996. The Hidden Manna faction believed that it would take place on August 6, 1999, then October 20, and now March 2012. Other survivors avoid date-setting.

Where have I seen this sort of thing before - changing the meaning of some "prophesy" to conform with what happens or doesn't happen in the real world .... Give me a minute... I'll figure it out eventually.

Izmir Stinger · 05-01-2007, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shome42

What is your response to this?

Why are the terrorists able to recruit so many martyrs to strap on vests of dynamite, while the US Army and Marine Corps are having record shortages in recruiting, forcing them to tap the inactive reserve for the first time in decades?

That's how I respond to this ludicrous argument when I encounter it.

aa5874 · 05-01-2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

My assumption is I am god and rule over everything. If you assume my assumption to be true there is no rebuttal to my assumption. So get down on your knees. Now! I am not kidding!

You are so going to hell man. I know Satan personally, in fact, he works for me, sort of. Its complicated. But believe you me, he will do me a favor, especially if it means he gets to torture someone gratuitously and with my blessing.

Can you tell me, in a dream, the day of worship, i.e the day of rest? There is a God that kills if you don't rest. I hope you are not like that God because I do not like to rest on the same day week after week. I work shift.

Alf · 05-02-2007, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shome42

I have no idea. I don't have the time or expertise to sift through all the information and conflicting "experts." I guess my question here assumes that Jesus existed, he had 12 apostles and they all died for believing in him. If we assume those things to be true, is there no rebuttal to the arguement?

If we assume that there is a god then the statement "God exist" is true. There can be no rebuttal of it. Let's all become theists!

On a second thought, let's not.

My point is that your assumptions are 1) unfounded and 2) limit the possible conclusion to only one possible and it is most likelyhood in disagreement with reality.

Yes, it is POSSIBLE that there was some guy named "Yeshua" who ran around in Judea around 2000 years ago and it is possible that some people believed he could perform miracles. There's even a possibility that there were several such people roaming Judea at the time. So it is possible that one of them had exactly 12 disciples. It is also possible he had more or less.

The point is that the 12 disciples we hear about in the gospels appear to be the creation of the gospel authors and have no root in reality or if they had root in reality their roles in the gospels may not be historical. The gospel authors used them for theological purposes. Hey, we need someone who can represent the doubter, let's use "Thomas". He will question if Jesus was really Jesus and is thus the voice of all who do not accept our story without questioning. Let's Jesus tell him! So if anyone say that we are telling tall stories we can refer to Thomas' doubts and say what Jesus told Thomas!

Now, did Jesus really have a disciple named Thomas and did Thomas really doubt and did he really stick his fingers into the wounds? Hard to say but most likely not true.

Specifically, there is absolutely no indication that they all died as a result of their faith and their "deaths" appear more to be legendary than historical.

Alf

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2007, 06:32 PM	#24
Draconis Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: London UK Posts: 3,165	Obviously they didn't know it was a lie then. Or else they'd so convinced themselves it was true then even thinking about whether it was true or not was beyond them, wilfully or not. And possibly they were killed by the romans without regard to whether it was true or not (I doubt they cared that much either way) but simply to shut them up so they didn't cause any more trouble.

05-01-2007, 06:41 PM	#25
RAFH Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Kahaluu, Hawaii Posts: 6,400	Nothing the least bit unbelievable about that story. It must be true. Where do I sign up? Actually I think Peter was chickening out. The agonizing part of crucifixion is that when hanging like that you can breath and so you slowly asphyxiate. But its very, very slow. You tire of the pain of holding your self up so you can breath until you just can't anymore so you sag down and then start having difficulties breathing in sufficient air. The longer it goes on the greater the oxygen deficiency and eventually your body will spasm and pull yourself up despite the pain and the cycle starts over. One thing about those Romans, they were very thorough and when they did something, they bloody well did it right. No pussyfooting about. When they wanted to be nasty about something, they were very, very nasty about it. Anyway, the upside down crucifixion wouldn't be that bad, you'd pass out pretty quick from the blood pressure on your brain and that'd be it. It might be uncomfortable but at least you could breath. But it does seem to be worse if you don't think it through. Which is a good reason to doubt the story, if the Romans wanted you to suffer, they made darn sure you were going to suffer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.