Yuri Kuchinsky

The origins of Judaism are not in question here.

How come nobody wants to answer my specific questions? All we have so far is a bunch of distractions.

Yuri.

Wallener

15 years ago in the Balkans I watched people kill and be killed for completely arbitrary - yet fervently held - beliefs.

'Cause that's what we do as a species. It happens everywhere, all the time. We have an astounding ability to believe in the undemonstrated, which military trainers figured out a long long time ago. Fabricate a legend, attach it to a flag, and young men and women will willingly throw themselves in front of cannons for it.

That is not evidence either for or against the historic or mythic side of the debate.

There could have been a historical figure at the root of it, or it could be nothing more than that period's version of an Urban Legend. I haven't really seen a compelling case made by either side, yet. Given that the stories started in the same culture that created the Patriarchs, Exodus and the "glorious" Davidic monarchy out of little more than whole-cloth, I personally lean towards either minimal-historicity or amalgam of various semi-historicals.

Can I prove it? Nope.

Wallener

I would disagree with this. It's the same society: if it could create a believable myth in the 7th century BCE in a period of strong upheaval, why assume it couldn't happen again 700 years later in another period of upheaval?

Yuri Kuchinsky

YURI:
The origins of Judaism are not in question here.

Are you saying that the Jews are naturally prone to fabrications?

What's your point exactly?

I'm still waiting for the Mythicists to answer my specific questions. Instead, we have a bunch of 'undecideds' here offering distractions...

Yuri.

Wallener

Apologies for being a "distraction". Good luck on your quest.

Jedi Mind Trick

I'm agnostic about the mythicist/historicist debate... I just had a question.

Thanks Andrew for the answer.

Amaleq13

Yuri,

I'm not technically a mythicist but I'll give a shot at answering some of your questions from a Dohertyesque position even though I think the questions are entirely misguided and based on a flawed apologetic notion. I also think you haven't been reading the responses closely enough because several do directly answer some of your questions. You have already been given several alternate reasons why early Christians were martyred and none of them have anything to do with faith in the historical reliability of the Gospel stories or even faith that Jesus had been sacrificed at any particular point in time or on any particular point on earth.

First, the mythical beliefs of the earliest Christians are only "vague" to us. There is no reason to assume those holding the beliefs considered them to be vague. Second, why the author of Mark decided to present his Christian beliefs in a historical narrative is unknown whether one assumes an HJ or an MJ and largely depends on what audience one assumes it was intended. It seems to me that one factor relevant to either fundamental assumption is the time that had passed since the initial excitement of everyone experiencing the Risen Christ (presumably there were fewer such claims over time) while another that seems directly relevant is the war and subsequent destruction of the Temple.

If I understand the Platonic thinking Doherty suggests was central correctly, the sacrifice of Jesus in a spiritual realm was actually more real or at least more important than anything that could ever happen on earth. In addition, Paul has no problem making the connection between Christ's sacrifice and the need for his followers to emulate him despite never locating that sacrifice on earth. Whether it took place on earth or in heaven, the faithful would seek to emulate the selflessness of their Savior.

IMO, they fooled themselves just like every Christian to this day has fooled themselves into believing that they have a relationship with an entity that does not actually exist.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the dates Andrew suggests but I don't see any problem created for the mythicists because none appear to have been killed for any reason requiring a historical Jesus.

It seems to me that the fundamental flaw with this tired apologetic is that it assumes being willing to die for ones' faith in the Sacrificed Savior is equivalent to or somehow assumes a willingness to die for the historical reliability of the Gospel story. Since there is no evidence that any early Christians died because of their faith in the historical reliability of the Gospel stories, there is no basis for this assumption.

If they died before the first Gospel story was written, then the answer to your first question is "no". The answer to your second question has already been provided by other members. As far as we can tell, the earliest Christians were persecuted because their faith in the Sacrificed Savior precluded them from participating in the state religion which was a crime.

If the persecution efforts in which Paul claims to have participated included martyrs or the deaths of Stephen and James are true, then HJ belief emerged later. If there were Christian martyrs only after the first story was written, it would depend on the individual since it doesn't appear that the historical reliablility of the Gospel stories became dogma until many, many decades later.

Yuri Kuchinsky

YURI: Did the belief in the HJ emerge before or after the first Christian martyrs emerge?

The purpose of this particular discussion is to invite the Mythicists to state their case clearly, and to put forth a positive case -- how do they account for the rise of Christianity?

And I'm not the only one who's making such requests. I've already cited in the other thread this opinion of Bill Arnal,

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...53551#continue

=====quote=====

In addition, the negative emphasis on the historical Jesus is really self-deconstructing. If, indeed, the gospel materials about Jesus are not based on historical events, then the interesting questions all revolve around the processes, sociological or ideological, whereby early "Jesus people" formulated their ideas, actions, and stories. A shift is required from an excessive and frankly uninteresting concentration on the historical Jesus -- even an appropriately skeptical one -- to the genuinely historical question of the development of the Christian movement.

=====unquote=====

The above reply by Amaleq (who is technically not a mythicist) does nothing to address my concerns. I see no clear positive case there, just a bunch of 'ifs', and lots of 'wouldas' and 'couldas'...

Regards,

Yuri.

Peter Kirby

I believe, and many historicists agree, that this has not yet been done by anyone. Usually people select a subset of the evidence upon which to base their models, not giving the same consideration to all the evidence.

This question needs a separate thread. (Actually, you asked something similar before, and I posed it at IIDB. I can look it up.)

The first example of someone advocating martyrdom as imitation of Christ is Ignatius of Antioch in his letters. (He did believe in an earthly Jesus, unlike his opponents.)

This question can be asked just as sensibly by dropping the word "martyrs" and substituting "believers in an earthly Jesus." It is not the case that those who end up martyrs have higher standards of evidence.

The book of Hebrews (60s CE?) says that Christians have not yet suffered to the point of death.

Nero conducted a pogrom against the Christians for secular reasons (as a scapegoat to the fire that swept Rome in 64 CE).

The first known and recorded death, outside the book of Acts, is that of James the Just. The main reason for that, I think, was his claim on the high priesthood.

The Gospel of Mark says that Christians will be called before authorities and that the Holy Spirit will inform them of what to say.

Pliny the Younger says that he interrogated Christians, c. 112/113 CE, and that some of them were put to death. These is the first secular record of "Christian martyrs," commonly understood.

Ignatius of Antioch wrote his letters at about the same time.

There is a tradition that Domitian had persecuted the Christians. John may have been exiled to Patmos around 90 CE.

All in all, I would estimate that the first martyrdoms of Christians, for the reason of being Christian, took place between 90 and 110 CE.

This assumes that the Four Gospels plus Acts are good history.

Not counting James the Just, I would say that the belief in a Jesus killed by Pilate emerged before the first Christian martyrs.

best,
Peter Kirby

Clivedurdle

This concept of christian martyr is a propaganda statement from the christian perspective.

Isn't it clear the Romans saw themselves as imposing order against people who were both atheistic and committing treason?

What can we trust here? - another thread is arguing Ignatius is a forgery.

Statistically, how many people were executed under Roman Law, were xians that high a proportion?

What of all the similar groups - essenes, gnostics, jews? How many of those groups were martyred? Numbers of Jews kiled at the fall of Jerusalem and Masada were much higher than any odd martyrdoms I have heard about.

And I thought the main reason for xianities growth was Constantine, then a rewrite of history to pretend that all the myriad groups beforehand had something in common.

Has anyone statistically checked when and where xianity grew? I am very sceptical about it starting with an alleged Jesus!