Huon

However, a group of people just came to believe that. It does not make sense to you (nor me), but it made sense to them. BTW, I would not say that Jesus was a revolutionary. At that time, the idea of a "revolution" did not exist, whether political or social. On the contrary, the idea of a "messiah", a saviour, was rather common. And the idea of the resurrection of a god was also known in all the Middle East, in Greece, and in Rome.

For a believer, this not a make up, it is The Truth (with capital letters).

Huon

Satisfaction of telling The Truth, satisfaction of being respected and admired by the co-believers, satisfaction of telling a better Truth than some less clever people who did not know it very well, and had missed something... You probably know that there are more than four Gospels. Christianity was, at that time, a tree with many branches.

Chunk

What satisfaction would they get from telling a "truth" they made up? Wouldnt it be going against the God they believed in? Wouldnt it be seen as blasphemy?

That doesnt really change my point. The fact that the idea of a Messiah was common place, doesnt alter the fact that people would have to have made up their own Messiah knowing it to be false. Why would they do that when they were waiting for an actual true Messiah. Surely it would require them to completely turn their back on what they believed in and go on to make up their own version.

According to their beliefs, wouldnt they be damning themselves? Why would anyone want to do that?

Amaleq13

Cognitive dissonance resulting from the apparent failure of their movement and tremendous guilt resulting from abandoning their beloved leader are more than sufficient motivations for all sorts of rationalizations. Especially an astoundingly strong belief that the beloved leader didn't really die and the movement didn't really fail.

Ever heard the mother of a serial killer caught with bodies in his house continue deny his guilt? These are the same psychological factors and their power to alter the perceptions of the individual cannot be overestimated.

Huon

YOU say it was a made-up truth. THEY "knew" it was the truth, through the sayings of their Messiah himself. YOU (and me) do not believe that a person can come back from the heavens, say something to some people, and ascend again after that. But this person is the Son of God, that makes a big difference ! Auto-suggestion could be the word.

Every day, somewhere, somebody has a vision. The nature of the vision depends on the form of civilisation the visionary lives in.

jackrabbit

Nobody wrote in the star wars writings that this stuff is pure fiction. Not in the books themselves, not in the movies.

Darth Vader: "Luke, I am your father!"
<turns to face audience>
"By the way, this is fiction."
<turns back to Luke>
"Join me, and we will rule the galaxy father and son."

True, the cover of a star wars novel might say "A novel by Joe Blow", but not the text itself, as it would be implied. Did scrolls have covers or title pages?

Half-Life

Nobody would die for the belief that Star Wars is actual truth.

Explain all the writings of the NT.

http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Cor/1cor_1.htm

http://www.carm.org/kjv/Matt/matt_1.htm (Generations described) who would have reason to make this up? Surely these people are historical. If not they would be refuted.

jackrabbit

No one would die for star wars now, but perhaps 2000 years from now, when people have lost track of whether it is truth or fiction. Perhaps not, though, as we have more durable recording methods now.

If people did indeed die for x-ianity, they certainly thought it was truth. But that doesn't disprove the idea it was originally fiction that was later taken as historical reality.

Kosh

It should be noted that in an interview with George Lucas, he commented that after Star Wars was a success, somebody pointed out to him that he could easily start an entire religion from it (ala Scientology).


Fortunately, he thought it was a stupid idea....

Same could not be said for L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith.

hatsoff

The problem with this argument that no one would have reason to invent all these stories is that it doesn't take into account the big picture. Jesus certainly may never have existed, even in name only. How can this be? Very simple.

The following is only one of many possible scenarios....

It begins with someone hungry for attention, who makes up a story that he knew the Messiah. He gives the man a name: Yeshua (Jesus). At first, the story is very simple: Jesus taught a message of peace and love, and was put in prison for his so-called blasphemy.

And that's the spark that begins it all. As rumors spread, more and more teachings and miracles are attributed to Jesus. Prison becomes crucifixion, and leads to stories of a resurrection. As the story becomes popular, several people, also attention-seeking, lie and claim they knew Jesus personally. Peter is the most successful of these, and gathers disciples to spread the story further. Paul, a man who admits to never having known Jesus, genuinely believes the story, and zealously preaches it to all who will listen. The stories eventually are written down by anonymous followers of Peter and Paul, and several versions are distributed. One of them is attributed to the Apostle Matthew--a man who had falsely claimed to have known Jesus. Some time later, another Gospel is written and attributed to another such man, the Apostle John. Meanwhile, correspondence between churches are copied and distributed.

None of that is implausible. Unlikely, yes. But it's definitely within the realm of reasonable possibility.