Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johann_Kaspar · 02-06-2007, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windsofchange

I was actually being sarcastic when I quoted Christians as saying "they were but simple fishermen". Perhaps I should have highlighted the word "simple" since to me it is a polite synonym for "gullible".

I don't feel any need to give you an answer about "walking on the sea" because I wasn't referring to that at all. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else.

And yes, I do understand what "fishermen" means.

That is the whole problem: you have no idea, like the xians. And I am not sarcastic.

I know you were not referring at "walking on the sea", but it would have been quite useful when speaking of "fishermen".

Sorry, I am not helping you...

Elijah · 02-06-2007, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

He went around spouting off and annoying people and got executed for it.

I think the problem is that you are making assumptions about Jesus that I do not make. You think I'm saying "Socrates was just as noble as Jesus," when what i'm actually saying is that we have no reason to believe that Jesus was so all-fired noble in the first place. We know (at best) that he was executed by Pilate for some kind of perceived crime against Rome. We have no reason to assume that he chose this death, that he thought it served any purpose, that he wasn't actually guilty of something, that he didn't try to run away, that he didn't protest, beg for his life or renounce any of his own words when he was about to get nailed up. You're assuming both an intent and a "cause" which you can't prove existed.

I’m not saying Socrates was more or less noble then Jesus; nor do I care about any of that. I’m saying they lived different lives and died differently for different reasons. Period.

All I can use to argue my case is the scripture. If I can’t use scripture then there is no point in having this conversation because Jesus doesn’t exist outside of the scripture. If you’re going to discuss Christ then you’re going to have to allow for the use of scripture. The scripture says that Christ willingly knowingly and believed that his death would change the world. It’s Christianity 101. He went to the cross.

Elijah · 02-06-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windsofchange

According to the wikipedia entry on Socrates, Socrates' reasons for not fleeing were:

Quote:
1. He believed that such a flight would indicate a fear of death, which he believed no true philosopher has.

2. Even if he did leave, he, and his teaching, would fare no better in another country.

Where are you getting "too damn old and prideful" from that?

Number 1… was prideful he didn’t want to indicate a fear of death… didn’t want to look like a wussie.

Number 2… He was too old to run away , too old to flee to another country. Old men don’t go running from their homes. He was 70 years old. And from Wikipedia “Men, especially one so old as Socrates, should not fear death.”

spin · 02-06-2007, 05:31 PM

Here is a just as pertinent question:

Why did Frodo put his life on the line?

spin

Johann_Kaspar · 02-06-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Here is a just as pertinent question:

Why did Frodo put his life on the line?

spin

Very good question indeed.

To allow Tolkien to write his novel

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-06-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

I’m not saying Socrates was more or less noble then Jesus; nor do I care about any of that. I’m saying they lived different lives and died differently for different reasons. Period.

They died for similar reasons...and we know that Socrates, at least, accepted his fate without fear. We don't know what Jesus did.

Quote:

All I can use to argue my case is the scripture. If I can’t use scripture then there is no point in having this conversation because Jesus doesn’t exist outside of the scripture. If you’re going to discuss Christ then you’re going to have to allow for the use of scripture. The scripture says that Christ willingly knowingly and believed that his death would change the world. It’s Christianity 101. He went to the cross.

Jesus can be discussed without the use of NT writings. Not MUCH can be known, but Historical Jesus scholarship is not an either/or exercise.

I should also point out that this thread is supposed to be about an argument proposed by Lee Strobel as to WHY the Gospels should be accepted as history. You can't prove their historicity simply by citing their claims.

Elijah · 02-06-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

They died for similar reasons...and we know that Socrates, at least, accepted his fate without fear. We don't know what Jesus did.

Jesus can be discussed without the use of NT writings. Not MUCH can be known, but Historical Jesus scholarship is not an either/or exercise.

I should also point out that this thread is supposed to be about an argument proposed by Lee Strobel as to WHY the Gospels should be accepted as history. You can't prove their historicity simply by citing their claims.

I thought the post was about why Jesus’ disciples decided to die for their cause, but ok sorry.

I’m not trying to prove anything, I’m just seeing if I can get the idea through to you, but failing miserably.

pharoah · 02-06-2007, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Jesus is the first and only true martyr. I don’t know of any pre Christian examples of someone just willingly going to their death like Jesus did.

According to the OT, Samson willingly died for the Israelite cause. Does he count? And what about the Bethlehem babies that gave up their lives so that Baby Jesus could live and a prophecy could be fulfilled? Surely they're the first Christian martyrs?

You also seem to have missed driver8's post where he refuted the notion that Jesus died a willing death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 14

35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.

36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Does this sound like someone willing to die? The fact that the other gospels, all written after Mark, "cleaned" up this passage is not very helpful to your thesis either.

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-06-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

I thought the post was about why Jesus’ disciples decided to die for their cause, but ok sorry.

No. Strobel's argument is that the alleged maryrdom of the apostles is evidence for the resurrection (i.e. for the historicity of the Gospels). Maybe you haven't read it.

The premise for this argument is flawed in that there is no evidence that the apostles either believed in a physical resurrection or that they were martyred for such a belief. The martyrdom traditions are not even Biblical.

Quote:

I’m not trying to prove anything, I’m just seeing if I can get the idea through to you, but failing miserably.

I'm trying to get you to see that you're arguing from unsupported premises.

spin · 02-06-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

Quote:

Why did Frodo put his life on the line?

Very good question indeed.

To allow Tolkien to write his novel

Novel problems require novel solutions.

But I must note, PhilosopherJay functionally beat me to the punch: If there are no mutants, why did Jean Grey ... die for them?

It doesn't make sense to ask questions whose assumptions have not been shown to be correct -- as in the case of the OP: Why would Jesus' apostles die for their cause?

spin

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

02-06-2007, 05:31 PM	#44
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Here is a just as pertinent question: Why did Frodo put his life on the line? spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.