Jack the Bodiless

Then how do you explain all the OTHER Jewish Messiahs?

Jesus ben Pantera, died on the cross circa 100 BC.

Judas of Galilee led a Jewish uprising against Rome in 6 CE. He was called "the Messiah". He died on the cross.

Theudas, defeated in the year 44 CE: he too was a "Messiah" who died on the cross.

Benjamin the Egyptian (55-60): proclaimed himself the Messiah, died on the Cross.

Menachem, the grandson of Judas the Galilean appeared in the year 67 CE: proclaimed himself the Messiah, died on the Cross.

Simeon Bar Kochba led the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome in 132 CE: he too was a "Messiah" who died on the cross.

It seems that plenty of people wanted to follow "the Messiah", and ANY Messiah would do. I suggest you watch Life of Brian.

The Evil One

They didn't think it was false. This is a straw man. No one who proposes that the NT account is non-historical is suggesting that the writers were deliberately spreading a false religion. They themsleves believed the religion they were spreading to be the absolute truth.

As I said at the end of the last page in a post which you apparently missed:

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen

Well, the jews were at war with Rome round about the time that Chistianity was 'forming'. So those in the region that were not etnically jews, but had adopted ( parts of ) jewish tradition and/or religion, might be inclined to distance themselves from mainstream jewish religion to avoid problems with the Romans, it wasn't their fight anyway.

( just a an amateurs view )

Gregg

Magus, people weren't "killed for following Christianity." They were sometimes persecuted for not nominally worshipping the Emperor or the state gods, but this isn't being persecuted for their specific beliefs. Rome was actually quite tolerant of different religious beliefs.

And assuming Jesus existed, the Emperor didn't have him killed. His agents in Palestine did, just like they killed other Messianic claimants. Do you think the Emperor personally ordered every crucifixion, or remembered them all? Do you really think he'd care that a few dusty, wild-eyed followers of a dead and buried Messianic pretender were claiming the guy was still alive? Out of all the weird and wild beliefs held by the seething mass of salvation cults throughout the Roman empire, why should this one stand out?

Gregg

Who has said this, Magus, WHO?? You're creating a strawman! The mythicist case has been explained to you time and time again, but apparently you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la la la I'm not listening.

The people who followed Christianity were influenced by Greek, Roman, and other pagan teachings, as well as a mystical interpretation of the Jewish scriptures. They also were influenced by eschatology. They believed they were living in the end times and that God was revealing a hitherto hidden plan of salvation, in which the "Son" figured prominently in one fashion or another. They didn't "make up a false religion," they really believed God was revealing things to them via the scriptures, the Christ, the Holy Spirit, what have you.

Also, it's doubtful that the first Christians were really illiterate Jewish farmers and fishermen. Illiterate Jewish farmers and fishermen don't suddenly start spouting neo-Platonic philosophy and theology.And again, nobody is claiming any such thing. This is all a strawman argument, Magus. The various "Son" worshippers didn't feel they had "made up" their religion, they believed it had been revealed to them. They also believed they were living in the end times, so they sure weren't thinking of being known to future generations.

And anyway, you have yet to demonstrate that being a Christian guaranteed most people an "early and painful demise." There is no evidence that the early Christians were martyred, or that they were martyred because of what they believed.Not all early Christians were Jews, actually, it's just that the version that eventually won out had more Jewish influences than other versions.

Many of the basic elements of Christian belief probably originated in ancient pagan superstitions and contemporary Greek philosophy, which influenced certain Jewish mystics and led them to search for parallels in the Jewish sacred writings.

The conquests of Alexander the Great followed by the conquest of the Romans, with the accompanying shake-ups and transformation of world society, the influence of Hellenistic philosophy, the continuing occupation of Palestine by Roman forces, eschatological fervor, etc. were factors that led some Jews off on wild tangents of belief.

It's hardly unusual for people to decide to march to the beat of a different drummer, Magus. That seems to be a basic human characteristic. In fact, our creativity, our urge to be original, to take risks, to go out on a limb, was probably a major factor in our being more successful than our competitors the Neandertals.

Magus55

Yeah, so there are many messiahs. Thats the point. After a so called messiah came around, people follow him, until his death. And then they disbanded, lost hope and waited for another messiah. But Jesus was different. If he died and stayed dead, the apostles should have just gone back to their judaic roots, and forgotten about him like the many so called messiahs before him. Yet 2000 years later, we still worship Jesus Christ of Nazareth - not Benjamin, not Judas, not Menachem, not Simeon. There was something hugely different about Jesus of Nazareth, that none of the others possessed. The only thing that could keep the hope alive in his followers, and not have them disband and lose hope like in previous cases of self-proclaimed Messiahs, is if Jesus proved who He claimed to be, by rising from the dead.

Magus55

Its not a strawman. Why did they believe the religion they were spreading was truth? What convinced them? As Jack pointed out, there are plenty of other self-proclaimed Messiahs, who made divine claims, died, and were never seen again. Why did the Apostles believe in Jesus of Nazareth so strongly? Why was He more convincing than all others before and after him?

Gregg

I wanted to add--although nobody says this is why/how Christianity started, it's also true that what YOU would do, today, is hardly a guide to what a small group of religious mystics would do, 2,000 years ago, especially when they believed the end times were at hand. Not all religious folk are as level-headed and sensible and rational as you are, Magus.

For that matter, what you would do is not necessarily a guide to what others would do in more recent times. By nearly all objective accounts, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard really DID invent religions out of whole cloth, and Joseph Smith at least put his life at risk by doing so.

Magus55

Actually Christians were persecuted and killed for following Christianity. Paul himself did this, and he boldly states that he did so.

The Evil One

We're not talkign about the Apostles; we're talkign about the NT authors, people who lived decades after Jesus and anyone who knew him in the flesh.

Why do hindus believe in Lord Rama so strongly? Why do Jews beleive in Moses so strongly? Why do Muslims believe in Muhammad so strongly? Why do Mormons believe in Joseph Smith so strongly? Why do scientologists believe in L Ron Hubbard so strongly?

Placing limitless faith in semi-legendary guru-figures is just something that human beings do, and they don't need to have a particularly good reason to do it.

Are you actually going to respond to my first-page post, or not? Here it is again:



This is the scenario: Mr X decides to write an account of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus (which will one day be called a "gospel"). He is himself absolutely convinced that Jesus was the messiah. He starts writing his account, then realises he has no real idea when it all happened. He knows it was a few decades ago, but he doesn't know the exact year. Then he recalls the prophecy in Daniel! The messiah was prophesied to be executed in 33AD! Since he's certain Jesus is the messiah, he's also certain that Jesus must have fulfilled all the prophecies of the messiah. Therefore the year of the crucifiction must have been 33AD. Right, that solves that little problem. He writes his story of his messiah's life and death, setting the latter firmly in 33AD. He even believes himself it happened in 33AD. But as we can see, that needn't be the case.

This is how prophecy fulfilments that never happened can get inserted into texts like this, without any actual intent to deceive on the part of the writer.





Give it a rest, there is no evidence that any of the Gospel authors were martyred. There is precious little evidence for any martyrdoms in early (pre-Jewish-war) Christianity.





You do jump around, don't you? The question is not, did Jesus lie, the quesiton is, do we have sufficient reason to suppose that the Gospel writers accurately report the date of the crucifiction.