Common_Cents

If the Body of Jesus had been shown this discussion wouldn't be happening. I can believe that the apostles who knew and lived with Jesus could delude themselves but masses of people self deluding into a belief that caused persecution is just not logical.

How do you know that they weren't martyred?

Common_Cents

Well i would say that none of them made it very far...although i would wonder which ones in particular you are wanting to discuss.

Mageth

Interesting, but note that the Christians Nero persecuted weren't exactly given the chance to recant their Christiainity; even if they did, by the time the Romans had them, it was too late. They were rounded up, tortured, and executed. And the first ones that were seized, not surprisingly, revealed the names of other Christians under the duress of torture.

So I don't see this as supporting your assertion that, if Jesus was a fraud, the early Christian martyrs allowed themselves to be martyred despite knowing they beleived a lie, which is unlilely therefore they must have really believed. Whatever those people believed or didn't believe, they were doomed once the first group were seized.

Common_Cents

If christians were scared to die for Christ surely you would think that the religion would have disappeared at the site of persecution at this level. Or at least i think that it is reasonable to expect it too. If they were knowingly dying for a lie the are hardcore liars.

Mageth

The only problem is that the evidence we have doesn't really support that view. The first accounts of persecution of the Christian sect come a considerable time after Jesus was crucified, after the sect had already established itself. And the earlier persecution of Christianity was sporadic, not universal, and more often than not did not extend to murder. In Jerusalem, for example, a significant Church was established and prospered for some time, tolerated by other Jewish sects, before persecution really began. Read Acts!

Common_Cents

It didn't occur that Jesus could have rose at all. They were not exactly "joe in the know" about the crucifixion/resurrection. So if Jesus was a fraud how did they come up with the Resurrection in the first place?

The Romans cared because christians were saying Jesus was "King of Kings" they feared a revolt.

Common_Cents

Well lets assume that Jesus did exist and was crucified for blasphemy etc etc....it would hold that if his followers spread the word and acted in the same manner that they too would be killed right? I don't think it was ever "tolerated" by the Leadership of the Jews or the Romans.

http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/easy.htm

Mageth

You're right; belief of this sort is not really logical. Belief of this sort is not even supposed to be logical, and in the First Century the idea that belief must be "logical" would have been completely foreign to your average person.

Your mindest on this is a result of Rationalism, a relatively recent development. You tend to think that the religion had to have been established on literal, historical events. People of the First Century simply didn't think that way about religion in general; they thought mythically about religion, not rationally.

But I disagree that masses of people "self-deluded". The early Christians were teaching a belief system that resonated with the man on the street. It was something relatively new, a religion that anyone could join and that was egalitarian. That's why it spread so rapidly among the common people. And yes, they really believed, just like you do today. And that's not surprising; that's how religions work.

The question is, how do you know they were martyred?

Mageth

Fortunately for Christianity, such persecution was never universal, and even where it occurred tended to be sporadic.

And read the article you posted, the words of Tacitus: "For this cause a feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers."

This was not uncommon where Christians were publically tortured and murdered. The public spectacles at the expense of Christians often backfired on the officials directing the slaugher; the commoners viewing the carnage were impressed by the way some of the Christians died with dignity. This gained more converts among the commoners.

Christianity was a populist religion, very popular among the commoners as its egalitarian message resonated with them, less so among the elite, though there were certainly converts there as well. And the Christians really believed; people with strong beliefs of all sorts have shown willingness, even eagerness, to die for their beliefs. This willingness to die is not unique to Christianity.

And also note that among some Christians, martyrdom became desirable; they came to see it as emulating Christ, and an instant ticket to heaven, a guarantee of salvation. Some Christian sects (some of the Gnostic sects), however, derided this tendency among other Christians.

Again, I do not believe any early Christian knowingly died for a lie. They really believed. You're tilting at a windmill here. In any case, once they were captured, often it was too late; no amount of recanting would get them off the hook. (This was not always true; sometimes, Christians were asked to recant, often under torture; accounts report that some did, but some didn't).

Mageth

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Umm, not really. The Romans were generally, but not always, tolerant of Christianity at first, because they saw it as another form of Judaism. The Romans tolerated old, established religions such as Judaism. Once Christianity came to be seen as an upstart sect, separate from Judaism, a new religion, then the Romans no longer felt they needed to tolerate it, and in fact thought it should be controlled or even eradicated. And it was infecting the commoners, spreading rapidly among the man on the street. The Romans, however, didn't generally fear that the Christians were planning a revolt, though I suspect they may have used this as an excuse for persecution at times. In fact, some accounts report that the Christians were actually seen as model citizens outside of their strange beliefs.

The main thing that ticked off the Romans about this new religion is that its followers generally refused to honor the gods of the cities they were in. The Romans didn't fear the Christians; they feared the gods. They feared that the cities would lose the support of their gods, or draw their ire, if more and more people quit honoring them, quit making their required sacrifices. Thus, they sometimes referred to Christians as "atheists", since they didn't believe in the proper Roman gods.