Mageth

Well, you're wrong. Even the Bible shows you wrong. Read Acts 5. The Jewish counsel, while not portrayed as exactly friendly, decided to not kill the believers, but to let them go. (I think this account is liberally embellished, BTW - the Jews were apparently initially even more tolerant of the new sect than Acts describes). And, into the next chapter and beyond, the church continued to grow in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Where were all the killings of the apostles and everyone else following Jesus' example you talk about?

Chapters 6 and 7 recount Stephen's martyrdom, one of only a few accounts of martyrdom one can actually find in the NT.

In any case, the events depicted in Acts simply could not have happened if both the Jews and Romans were intially dead-set on murdering everyone that proclaimed Christ.

In the beginning, the Romans in Jerusalem would have had little or no interest in what they viewed as just another upstart Jewish sect, one among many, as long as none of them were riding into Jerusalem, being proclaimed "King", causing disturbances in the temple, and whatnot.

That's an LDS site. I had no idea you were Mormon. (In fact, I don't think you are - are you?)

TySixtus

C'mon, man. Yes it is. Once again, Burden of Proof. You're right in that 'absent of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence', but we've had 2,000 years to find the place, and it hasn't happened yet. There are NO Roman records of Nazareth existing, at all, and these guys wrote down everything.


I would hesitate to call them Historical Documents unless in the most rudimentary fashion. They are too riddled with errors to be trustworthy. Take the Luke/Census debacle.

Again, lack of evidence is the determining factor. You don't need positive evidence for lack of existence. Or are you ready to prove to me that the Invisible Pink Unicorn DOESN'T exist?

All facts taken into consideration, it's more probable that "Nazorean" refers to the Arabic "Nazarani" or "Nazrahi" which means 'little fishes'. The Essenes took this name (which was used in a slightly derogatory fashion) because of their incessant, ritual washing.

Dude, you need to do more than post a link. Do you have something to say about it? All I saw was some apologetics, which generally don't fly too well around here.

Ty

DMB

This isn't really true. Muhammad started off as a relative nobody but was clearly a charismatic preacher/teacher. He started off by convincing a few people who became his followers and things gradually expanded. They did have fights early on, but they were much too small to be dignified as wars of conquest. After his death as islam took hold, so the wars of conquest began. And don't forget that a lot of his followers must have died in these struggles -- or did god give them a miraculous dispensation from harm in the cause of islam?

Xianity didn't really take off until Constantine imposed it as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Magus55

False analogy. Suicide bombers don't know Mohammed was a fraud. He's been dead for a long time, and He never claimed to be able to perform miracles, or be the Son of God. On the other hand, the Apostles interacted on a daily basis with Jesus, and Jesus made huge claims. They would have died for what they knew was a lie, not what they believed to be true.

Magus55

According to who?

Magus55

Or He had such a huge impact that they didn't want to let people know about it. If a man you just had executed, who had started a revolution against the Emperor, suddenly got up out of His grave, I wouldn't want to let people know about it either. I would see that as an ego hit against the Roman empire. Not an impressive empire if they can't even keep one trouble maker dead.

At least 2 of them were, and the other 2 were written under the guidance of the disciples.

Mageth

So far, the only people on this thread claiming anything about the apostles knowing it was all a lie and dying for a lie are theists.

Oh, and once again, most if not all the accounts of the Apostles' martyrdoms are suspect at best, Church legends that are not widely accepted as historical facts.

I personally have little doubt that the early Christians, even the Apostles that knew Jesus, actually believed in what they preached.

Mageth

Umm, that's a stretch, to say the least.

Umm, no, at most two of them were, and the authorship of both of those (as well as the other two) is highly questionable.

Magus55

They must have been pretty big morons then. I wouldn't believe a man could walk on water, feed 5000 people with one loaf of bread, or rise from the dead unless He showed me He could. And if He couldn't show me, He's a fraud and I wouldn't want to follow Him anyway. Since human nature has been spouted on this thread regarding making up stories, its probably human nature for the Apostles to have felt like I do. Even atheists spout the mantra, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And its not like Jesus was the first person to come a long during the time to claim this stuff. Where is the other history altering books that document that so called Messiahship of other people? What makes Jesus so special?

Magus55

Not necessarily. If you controlled the most powerful empire in history, would you want the world to know you failed to kill a peasant, and He caused a revolution after His death?



Only to atheists and skeptics. And atheists will do anything to disprove theists. You gotta feel that sense of superiority, that you're right, and theists are dumb.