Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hatsoff · 02-07-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Well if you want to understand why the early Christians were so eager to martyr themselves then you’re going to need to be able to see the difference between what Socrates or anyone else had done at the time and what Christ did. What Christ did was new and unique to them and like good little monkeys they imitated his actions. They imitated his self sacrifice.

Just like the children imitated Socrates in the talking in endlessly dumb questions testing people.

You may not be able to see the significance of the difference between the two but the early Christians certainly seemed to.

I can assure you I have a fine understanding of what happened, but facing religious persecution was no new concept for the early church. Why, just two centuries earlier the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who were saved from death by divine intervention, just like Jesus. And the Christians themselves did not strive to imitate Jesus' martyrdom, as it would be fruitless and destructive. That they were persecuted even to the point of executions and murders does not mean they sought out their plight.

Gamera · 02-07-2007, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Nevermind the fact that Socrates' martyrdom was real, while Jesus' is part of a mythical drama.

There is of course no credible evidence whatsoever that Socrates was martyred. Or at least the evidence is of the same or inferior quality as that attesting to Jesus' death. Three very late mss, one by a guy who had an ax to grind with Athens, one by a playwright, and one by a guy who made his living off the drama of putative Socratic dialogs. Hardly reliable.

Elijah · 02-07-2007, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

I can assure you I have a fine understanding of what happened, but facing religious persecution was no new concept for the early church. Why, just two centuries earlier the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who were saved from death by divine intervention, just like Jesus. And the Christians themselves did not strive to imitate Jesus' martyrdom, as it would be fruitless and destructive. That they were persecuted even to the point of executions and murders does not mean they sought out their plight.

He went to his death. Do you get it? Religious persecution and persecution in general have nothing to do with it. Self-sacrifice was how he got his message out. The details of who martyred themselves and who didn’t and how much of it was their own doing is irrelevant. How the message got to us was through people dying needlessly in imitation of Christ and freaking people out.

hatsoff · 02-07-2007, 05:09 PM

I disagree. We have at least one eyewitness account of the trial and death. Yes, it should be viewed with a degree of skepticism, but I would not dismiss it. Even if Plato purposefully embellished his account, the larger setting of a trial and execution seems unlikely to have been invented.

hatsoff · 02-07-2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

He went to his death. Do you get it? Religious persecution and persecution in general have nothing to do with it. Self-sacrifice was how he got his message out. The details of who martyred themselves and who didn’t and how much of it was their own doing is irrelevant. How the message got to us was through people dying needlessly in imitation of Christ and freaking people out.

Elijah, there is no credible evidence that Jesus willingly went along with his execution. And when Christians refused to recant their beliefs facing their own execution, though they may have found strength in the belief that Christ had experienced similar suffering, their motives seemed to be a general religious conviction, not any conscious imitation of Jesus--not to mention that Jesus may or may not have actually behaved as the Gospel accounts tell us.

In short, there may be parallels between the Jesus tale and individual instances of ante-Nicene persecution, but the connection is unlikely to be causative.

windsofchange · 02-07-2007, 05:25 PM

Socrates was condemned to death and chose not to escape, even though he could have.

Jesus was condemned to death and chose not to escape, even though (being God) he could have.

Seems pretty similar to me, other than the (being God) part.

Elijah · 02-07-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windsofchange

Socrates was condemned to death and chose not to escape, even though he could have.

Jesus was condemned to death and chose not to escape, even though (being God) he could have.

Seems pretty similar to me, other than the (being God) part.

Sure they’re similar, but can you see the significance of the differences? Socrates arrest and trial happened to him, Jesus manufactured his. And why did Jesus refuse to try to save himself, and why did Socrates?

Malachi151 · 02-07-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

There is of course no credible evidence whatsoever that Socrates was martyred. Or at least the evidence is of the same or inferior quality as that attesting to Jesus' death. Three very late mss, one by a guy who had an ax to grind with Athens, one by a playwright, and one by a guy who made his living off the drama of putative Socratic dialogs. Hardly reliable.

Well, this is true.

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-07-2007, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

There is of course no credible evidence whatsoever that Socrates was martyred. Or at least the evidence is of the same or inferior quality as that attesting to Jesus' death. Three very late mss, one by a guy who had an ax to grind with Athens, one by a playwright, and one by a guy who made his living off the drama of putative Socratic dialogs. Hardly reliable.

This isn't really true. We do have a primary claim for the trial and execution of Socrates as well as corroboration for his existence by Aristophanes. That may not be GREAT evidence for the career of Socrates but it's still a better quality of evidence than what exists for Jesus.

Solo · 02-08-2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
The Original Gospel "Mark" says the exact opposite. Jesus' closest followers Explicitly Refused to die for a Jesus' cause:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14

"43 And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

44 Now he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; take him, and lead him away safely.

45 And when he was come, straightway he came to him, and saith, Rabbi; and kissed him.

46 And they laid hands on him, and took him.

47 But a certain one of them that stood by drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear.

48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves to seize me?

49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but [this is done] that the scriptures might be fulfilled.

50 And they all left him, and fled."

JW:
And so, According to "Mark", Jesus' closest followers not only Refused to die for a cause, they refused to even get arrested. This is not a casual point by "Mark", it is a major Theme:

1) "The Disciples" are consistently portrayed as The Negative example of Disciple behavior.

2) The Disciples' Failure of abandonment Fulfills prophecy.

3) The Ending (the un-Forged one) makes clear that the Failure is Final.

No, I Am afraid that as Hands said in the classic "Die Hard", "This time Grace does not write off into the Son set with "John" Wayne."

Imagine if you will the absurdity of Peter being responsible for a Gospel that depicts him as a text-book Failure of being a Disciple of Jesus and using this Gospel to try and convince people that he was a successful and authorized Disciple of Jesus.

Joseph

No "absurdity", Joe but a paradox. Chesterton cleverly hinted that the gospel Peter being a shuffling snob and a coward was an ideal choice for a church leader - the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Making Peter the head of the Church was a guarantee of its invincibility. The Catholic faith is superior, simply because it admits every kind of believer, even the respectable one.

You are right in that Mark's overriding theme is that Jesus' companions cannot "follow" him. They don't get IT, because they cannot match his INTENSITY (if I may be permitted to capitalize J's. answer to the Zebedees in 10:36-40) in carrying out his other-worldly purpose. They are not the "true" martyrs (witnesses) of Jesus as are presumably many in the "knowing" audience which Mark addresses, who received baptism by Holy Spirit (1:8).

Jiri

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

02-07-2007, 05:09 PM	#114
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	I disagree. We have at least one eyewitness account of the trial and death. Yes, it should be viewed with a degree of skepticism, but I would not dismiss it. Even if Plato purposefully embellished his account, the larger setting of a trial and execution seems unlikely to have been invented.

02-07-2007, 05:25 PM	#116
windsofchange Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The achingly beautiful San Fernando Valley Posts: 2,206	Socrates was condemned to death and chose not to escape, even though he could have. Jesus was condemned to death and chose not to escape, even though (being God) he could have. Seems pretty similar to me, other than the (being God) part.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.