TySixtus

Why would the disciples die for a lie?

1) There were't any disciples, so it doesn't matter.
2) The disciples didn't die for the lie. Maybe they died of old age, or scurvy.
3) They didn't know it was a lie.
4) Jesus was a great con-artist.
5) They didn't die for the lie, but died for the truth. Ergo, Christianity is true.

Hmmmm.....

Ty

Abu Mathyu

Does a white billed crow count?



Seriously, it takes a God to prove his own existance.

You don't send twelve of your friends to the DMV to get your ID for you, and when they arrive they simply say "John exists, you must believe us, give us the ID and we will insure his kindness to you." You have to go to the DMV yourself to prove you exist and get your own ID.

Barbarian

jonathan, I don't think you are doing this the right way. We are trying to establish whether the NT is fiction or not. You cannot assume either way in an attempt to prove either way. Your problems with the answers boil down to the fact that the answers don't consider the Bible to be true by default, which however is the correct way to proceed if we are investigating the merits of the Bible. The only exception is the astonishing claim that:
There are none. If you throw out all those which talk about Christians or Christianity instead of Jesus, then only the Testimonium Flavianum remains, and that is an interpolation, otherwise it would have to be a sign of Josephus accepting Jesus as the Messiah, and yet devoting to him a much shorter portion of text than he usually devotes to inconsequential local highwaymen.

RPS

As written, this statement is very deceptive. The majority of scholars (per Fredriksen's Jesus of Nazareth -- note that Fredriksen is not a Christian) accept the Testimonium as basically authentic with interpolations, thus providing an extra-Biblical source. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Josephus "brother of James" reference is not wholly genuine, providing another one.

gracebkr

That's crap. Many historians don't know what they study to be fact, but they take what they have a draw conclusions. You think all historians are stupid people who "none have any knowledge" of Jesus' existence. You are self loving. You think you are right because "no undeniable proof exists" You can say that about a lot of things that can't be denied. You choose to do it about Jesus, why? Because He is your problem. That Jesus fella is always getting in your way from turning believers into non-believers. Don't you think that it is possible he lived and understand why most people think he lived,or can't you see past your own forehead?

Biff the unclean

Wow! Grace you seemed shocked. Didn't you know that there is no evidence that Jesus even existed? Didn't you know that Historic Jesus is mere speculation?

TomboyMom

What are they?

TomboyMom

Good point, grace. Historians, like scientists, seek evidence, not proof. Nothing in history is known for a certainty. The question is whether there is sufficient evidence. My understanding is that most historians today do believe that there was a preacher who can be identified tenuously with the biblical figure of Jesus Christ, and who was executed by the Romans. However, the same can not be said for anything related to His divinity, such as virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc. Many people, including many historians, believe there was no such guy. While this belief is not an absurd one, like YEC, it is not the majority view.

Koyaanisqatsi

We have absolutely no idea what the disciples were actually "witness" to. What we do have are cult mythologies written decades after any alleged events; cult mythologies that treat such things as resurrecting from the dead, laying on of hands to heal the sick and dying, demons, gods and angels as unquestionably real.

It wasn't just Jesus that resurrected (Lazarus springs to mind), or Jesus that healed (John the Baptist); etc. Hell, wine to water is nothing compared to parting the Red Sea or turning a staff into a snake, so there was nothing in any of that that Jesus' disciples didn't already know of, or believe was possible, or believe was a fact of their existence.

The only unique aspect to Jesus was the claim that he would die and be resurrected bodily three days (and nights, don't forget) later.

Mark, the creator of the passion narrative myth, makes no mention at all of any of the disciples witnessing this and ends his story with a "young man" sitting in the open, empty tomb telling Mary and some other women that Jesus is "risen," which could just as easily mean "he didn't die."

Curiously, no one seems to care who this kid is or what the hell he's doing there, but that's the end of the story written at least forty years after it supposedly happened.

So, again, we not only have no idea what the disciples actually witnessed, but what we do have tells us nothing new or particularly unique in the context of cult beliefs for any of them to be killed "for."

For all we know, since they were still Jews (most definitely in Roman eyes) and we know Jews were being killed by the Romans, they were simply being killed (if at all) for being Jewish.

:huh:

But, again, the Bible cannot tell us what they actually witnessed, nor is there anything about what they allegedly witnessed that would cause the Romans to kill them.

The only reason Roman soldiers would be dispatched to hunt down and kill any "disciples" is if the word "disciple" to a Roman meant "seditionist."

RPS

I didn't know that and I don't know that. Indeed, a number of great scholars (like Fredriksen, Vermes and Meier) disagree.Why then are there (apparently) no academics who subscribe to the idea of a wholly mythical Jesus? Brainwashing? Grand conspiracy? Source for a new Oliver Stone flick? Indigestion? Being forced to rely upon the garbage in 'net-zeatot sites like this one can't be helping the MJ cause....