trendkill

The premise of the proof is far too simplistic to make a compelling evidential argument. The psychology of belief, knowledge, and sincerity is a lot more complicated than the teacher assumes.

wnope

Ask him if he's ever heard the Branch Davidians.

Gracchus

Not necessarily. Atheists can, after all, be patriots, or zealous idealists for who the end justifies the means, and some can just be sociopathic personalities, who don’t have bad feelings, no matter what they do.

:wave:

Yahzi

Hang on - that wasn't the question.

How long is the list of historians who subscribe to Jesus, the 12 apostles, and their deaths as martyrs?

Ya, see... that's a little different. It's one thing to claim there was a historical basis for this Jesus fellow... it's something else to assert him and his posse rolled through Jerusalem kicking demon ass and taking names.

Von Smith

Well, no, you wouldn't know if he were divine or not. How would you? And true miracles might be difficult to distinguish from fake ones, especially if you're pre-disposed to believe and aren't looking too hard. Look at the people who go to faith healers today, or make pilgrimages to forged holy images. Look at Uri Geller fans. And, with the passage of years, a true believer could, in fact, convince themselves that they had seen wonders that never really happened, especially if their delusions had the support of like-minded cultists.

In short, by the time they had the opportunity to martyr themselves, they would have had ample opportunity to resolve any cognitivie dissonance issues they might have had about Jesus, his divinity, and his miracle-working career. And that is assuming that there were, in fact, real disciples who really knew Jesus personally during his ministry who really martyred themselves.

kennethamy

First of all, just because something is not true, that does not mean it is a lie. People who believe what is not true are not lying. You have to be careful about saying that people who believe what is not true are actually lying. That may be an very unfair thing to say.

In the second place, supposing that the Jesus story is false, why would your teacher think that the Disciples would know that it was false? Why couldn't they believe it was true but be wrong? I don't know why your teacher would say that at all. Do you?

Godless Dave

Stalinism, Islamophobia, nationalism, etc., as far as atheists who commit atrocities because of lies. Others do it for honest greed.

aa5874

No historian, christian or otherwise, can show that a figure named Jesus, as described in the NT, ever lived. Many historians believe in Jesus, but none have any knowledge of his existence.

The information in the NT about Jesus is not credible. The birth of Jesus as described is not true, all of the miracles as described are not true, his burial, resurrection and ascension are not true.

Christian academics are in a conflict of interest situation, since some expect to be rewarded with eternal life if they believe and propagate that Jesus lives.

jonathan_hili

I think there is a real problem with some of these responses. For example:

1. "No historian, christian or otherwise, can show that a figure named Jesus, as described in the NT, ever lived. Many historians believe in Jesus, but none have any knowledge of his existence.

The information in the NT about Jesus is not credible. The birth of Jesus as described is not true, all of the miracles as described are not true, his burial, resurrection and ascension are not true."

There are many extra-biblical sources that state that Jesus existed as a historical person. Did he exist in the same was as the NT suggests? Well, since the NT and Pauline letters were written while many witnesses to Jesus still lived, and while other sources, like letters from Ignatius, Polycarp, etc. attest to evidence of Jesus received directly from the apostles (who died for their faith in Christ), it seems unlikely that these sources, if falsified, could have remained unquestioned. In fact, the last point here is very suggestions: "The information in the NT about Jesus is not credible... miracles as described are not true... etc. etc." Essentially, what this writer says is: "I don't believe this, therefore historians can say nothing about it." I disagree. The NT stories of Jesus are credible IF he was the Son of God - certainly they are not credible if he was not.

2. "In the second place, supposing that the Jesus story is false, why would your teacher think that the Disciples would know that it was false? Why couldn't they believe it was true but be wrong? I don't know why your teacher would say that at all. Do you?"

The key issue here is what the apostles say and do. They say they saw Jesus resurrected, they spoke with him, they touched and ate with him... their experience of the resurrected Jesus was something true for them. And, it is important, that this was no hallucination. The way Jesus's resurrection appearances are described in the NT suggest a real flesh and blood person - not a ghost. In fact, his resurrection actually validated his claim - a claim the apostles believed was wrong after his execution. The apostles died for what they had seen, not for what they believed.

3. "The premise of the proof is far too simplistic to make a compelling evidential argument. The psychology of belief, knowledge, and sincerity is a lot more complicated than the teacher assumes."

I disagree. I do not think that stubborn, cynical fishermen who saw a man they followed for three years executed as a criminal, shunned by his own people and cursed by God, would be likely to believe they saw him resurrected, ate with him, touched him too, and then risk their lives and souls to preach his message. I think it even less likely that his enemies (like Paul) or family (like James) would be likely to follow him unless he appeared to them as is claimed. Yes, psychology of belief, knowledge and sincerity is complicated but psychological explanations for incredible historical phenomena, especially when they don't take account of the phenomena, the historical evidence and other pertinent events, are unconvincing.

4. "If Jesus existed and were crucified (and I see no reason to doubt either), the most likely reason would be because he was the leader of what the Romans would have considered a "terrorist" organization. Which also explains why he allegedly instructs his disciples that if the shit hits the fan, they should all leave their women and children behind and run like cowards and how they would be "persecuted" for knowing him. Of course they would be; they were seditionists.

That's the most likely, reality version of why any "followers" of Jesus might have been hunted down and killed, though, again, as others have pointed out, we have no reliable confirmation that this actually happened.

It also would explain, however, why they might have been killed "for their beliefs;" because what they believed in was sedition against their oppressor, so the first question I guess I would ask your teacher is what did a first century Roman think one of Jesus' alleged disciples was? A Jew? Certainly, no questioning that. A Jew who believed that Jesus was God? No evidence in the gospels that I know of confirms this, but even if it were true, why would any Roman kill a Jew who thought another Jew was their God? "

This is highly problematic. Firstly, we do have historical evidence that the apostles were executed for their beliefs. Josephus, Tacitus, the NT, archaeological evidence from the catacombs in Rome, and other sources, evidence this.

Was Jesus's claims a form of sedition? In a sense yes, and that explains the response in John, where the Jewish leaders say that Jesus claims to be king and that there is no king except Caesar, so that Jesus was setting himself up as his rival. Other Gospel sources show Jewish leaders claiming that Jesus told Jews not to pay tax. So, Jesus was being set up as a seditious leader by the Jewish leaders.

No evidence in the Gospels suggests that Jesus thought he was God??? Please, read the Gospels again... "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..." and many others.

RPS

At least in part it is. You (rightly, I think) focus on what the experts think. Experts can be wrong, even all the experts can be wrong, but I tend to accept what the consensus of the experts says without a very good reason not to. And, as far as I can tell, the experts are unanimous that Jesus was an historical figure (with lots of disagreement over the details). Despite that consensus, most here at II appear to reject an historical Jesus. Ideology trumping evidence? Probably -- we're all prone to it.

I don't know, though I would expect it to be a short list. But I don't see it as an all-or-nothing proposition. A pretty good case for Peter's martyrdom is here, for example. Assuming that case is indeed made, since Peter preached a resurrected Jesus, the OP question is a fair one: why would someone die for what he knows to be false? The expected retorts re Heaven's Gate and the like are thus inept and inapt. The Heaven's Gate folks died believing wrongly but, by all appearances, sincerely believing. Peter dying for something he knew to be false is in an entirely different category.

It is indeed.

So you say -- and you're both biased and not (apparently) a professional historian. Why are you right and all the experts wrong? How is your bucking the tide different from a YEC saying all the experts are wrong about evolution?

So?

In general, Christian academics haven't had a problem opposing orthodoxy across the board. Call Oliver Stone if you think there's some big conspiracy, but I don't see any evidence of one. Moreover, if you want to ignore the experts who are Christian (of whatever sort), the non-Christian experts also all seem to agree that Jesus was an historical figure.