Amaleq13

I have to admit I'm starting to suspect that this whole effort is directed at "prominent mythicists" who don't actually exist or, at best, aren't actually "prominent".

Would you agree that there really is no "contradiction" in existence with regard to genuinely prominent mythicists with regard to the import of martyrs? IOW, they all tend to consider them irrelevant as they are entirely explicable within either (HJ/MJ) assumptive framework.

In addition, and correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that Doherty does, contrary to Yuri's fundamental assertion, present a "positive picture" of the development of Christianity. I would think one would find that in part six of the book entitled "An Emerging Founder" as well as in parts eight ("The Evolution of Jesus of Nazareth") and nine ("The Second Century"). Online, I think you'll find a positive description of the development of Christianity contained in Part Two, Part Three, and The Second Century Apologists wraps it up.

Clivedurdle

No, we have to look at this within the context of the times. Remember, until the 19C we hung people for stealing sheep.

These xians were carrying out treasonous activities - not worshipping the gods, not acknowledging caesar as a god. Sorry, that is not martyrdom, it is criminal behaviour.

Yuri Kuchinsky

YURI:
Are you saying that there weren't any [martyrs]?

I'd prefer to discuss real history here, rather than "what if" history.

Judging by the above exchange, deliberate obfuscation seems to be your specialty...

It was you who made a mistake, not I. So don't blame me.

Do I have to teach the mythicists here about mythicism?

G. R. Mead, DID JESUS LIVE 100 BC?, London, Theosophical, 1903

Alvar Ellegard, JESUS - ONE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE CHRIST: A STUDY IN CREATIVE MYTHOLOGY, The Overlook Press, 1999.

Also, Wells has been mentioned already.

Yuri

Yuri Kuchinsky

YURI:
So how could these followers of a mythical Saviour be harmful to the Roman state?

Thank you, Johann!

But somehow I don't believe that the followers of a mythical Saviour could have been seen as harmful by anyone.

The reason why early Christianity was seen as harmful by the Romans IMHO was because of its connection with Judaism. Some of the Jews probably objected to some things, so this could have easily created dissension and trouble.

Also, as long as Christianity remained within Judaism, it remained a legal religion.

But do we know that Titus crucified Christians? Or that there were Christians at Massada?

The two big ones I omitted were John and James (Boanerges brothers). But it's still disputed when exactly John died, and how.

What is the significance of 888?

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

So if he really presents a positive picture of the development of Christianity, how come nobody here can answer my simple questions, based on what Doherty says?

Or do I have to teach the mythicists here about Doherty too?

Yours,

Yuri.

Amaleq13

That is why it is important to establish that there were martyrs before trying to identify what they believed. You haven't done that at all. You have establish there were martyrs before you can assert they are problem for mythicists.

What was intended was obvious so you clearly deserve blame for deliberate obtuseness. If you want to be taken seriously, quit playing <edit> games. Your "argument" is in enough trouble already.

No, but you do seem to have a lot to learn about who qualifies as a "prominent mythicist" today and what they are actually arguing.

Mead wrote over a century ago and is not, by any stretch of the imagination, considered to be a "prominent mythicist" today even if he was a hundred years ago.

Neither Wells nor Ellegard are mythicists and the latter claims that the historical Jesus was an Essene leader who eventually became the basis for Christian beliefs.

Your reluctance to be more specific is becoming more understandable. Your "prominent mythicists", so far, are a guy who wrote over a century ago and two non-mythicists. This thread has been a strawman argument from the very beginning.

Amaleq13

You've already been given an answer several times: the questions are entirely misguided because martyrs are not relevant to nor a problem for the mythicist position. Your insistance on perpetuating this misdirected focus appears to be entirely based on an argument from personal ignorance. IOW, you can't imagine someone having a strong enough faith in a Christ executed in a spiritual realm to be willing to die for it. Your inability to comprehend such a thing does not make it a problem for mythicism.

This is also an argument from personal ignorance. They had faith in their sacrificed savior and that faith required them to refuse to worship the Emperor or any of the Roman gods. That refusal was punishable by death because it was equated with treason. This holds true whether they believed their sacrificed savior died recently, a century ago, or at some unknown time in the lowest heavenly realm. I don't know what else can be said to help you understand it but your failure to comprehend does not constitute a problem with mythicism.

That would involve you first reading and understanding him but I see no evidence you've done either.

Read the sections I linked then come back and ask about what you think is missing or needs clarification. I hope Jacob would be willing to answer specific questions and he might even take them to Doherty if they are genuinely puzzling.

Steven Avery

Peter Kirby then properly mentioned an earlier execution, referring to the person as "James the Just" -- but I find it strange that the only post that really briefly partially mentioned how he is actually referred to by Josephus put it in an offhand accusation of forgery without a shred of evidence.

Let's go to the videotape.

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/james.html
Josephus on James
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

Josephus talks only of ..
" the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James and some others"

Since nobody else really wants to acknowledge this, I will :-)

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Amaleq13

praxeus,

Discussion of the "short reference" in Josephus requires and deserves a thread of its own (and has several times in the past, for example, brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James) but would constitute a significant tangent in the current thread.

.

Steven Avery

Understood. I just think the default method of referring to James would be the actual words of Josephus, rather than words he doesn't use. And yes, I am well aware that there are a variety of attempts to nullify the words in the James passage. The true mythicists had to come up with some forgery argument, since otherwise they would have to close up shop. They led the charge, and a lot of others in infidel land follow their lead. It is amazing what you can try to do with restricted and selectively constructed grammatical and style arguments (when did this person refer to that in manner a,b,c). If one doesn't work, you can always increase the initial number of parameters, adding a d/e.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/