Elijah

In my mind if you want to discuss Jesus you have to be allowed to use scripture, if not… you shouldn’t be allowed to discuss Jesus.

It is your job because it is an impossibility for me to prove uniqueness. You can disprove it, but I can never prove it. I can claim all I want that the snow flake is unique but I can’t prove it, but you can disprove it by showing me another flake just like it.

His story is unique unless you can come up with a comparable example.

Well do some searching/research and get back with me when you have something better then Socrates.

I fully recognize why you keep saying Socrates is a martyr. Of course I see the similarities, but I also see the differences that you don’t.

One of kind (to the best of my knowledge). You can prove me wrong any time… just do some research.

pob14

Okay, but this is what you said at the beginning of the discussion:

So I assumed you had some definition of "martyr" in mind, since you used the term first. So all you are saying is he's the only person, or the first person, to die willingly? That's obviously untrue: people die at their own hands every day. Are you saying he's the first, or only, to go to death for a cause? That's an insult to every soldier that ever carried a weapon. Are you saying he's the first, or only, to go to certain death for a cause? I guess everybody who stormed the beach at Normandy hoped they would be one of the few to survive, but that's pretty close. There have always been suicide missions; that's why there's a phrase for them.

What you're doing, is rejecting all the counterexamples without telling us what the criteria are. "Jesus is unique," you say. Well, sure, he's unique just like everybody else. But in this context, how and why is he unique?

That's why I asked for a definition. I'm not trying to be difficult or anything; I'm actually trying to facilitate discussion. I'm trying to figure out if you're saying something everybody agrees with, or nobody agrees with, or something in the middle. Sorry if I've been offensive at all; it's not intentional.

hatsoff

You don't have to prove anything, but it would help if you *explained* what you mean. Every story is somewhat unique, including Jesus', but what about this particular martyrdom distinguishes it from all others? I think Socrates is a great example, by the way, of an extremely similar figure. Both he and Jesus led peaceful lives, preached and had followers, were persecuted for their beliefs, and were ultimately put on trial and executed for them. Both men were encouraged by their friends to resist the executions, and both rejected the counsel, instead going willingly to their deaths. And sure, the stories are not exactly alike, but their differences don't make one or the other any more or less of a "true" martyr.

Diogenes the Cynic

This is rubbish, of course. What you seem to have a hard time understanding is that New Testament claims, in themselves, cannot be accepted as evidence for specific historical claims about Jesus.
But uniqueness is your assertion. If you admit you can't prove it then why bother to make it? I have no "job" except to evaluate whether you've supported your own assertions. Now you're saying you can't support them. Ok, then we agree that your assertions were baseless.
You haven't been able to articulate how Jesus' death differed from any number of other prior historical deaths. You keep trying to say he was "willing," but you haven't been able to PROVE that he was willing and you haven't been able to prove that he would have been the FIRST who was willling, in any case.
You need to offer a clear explanation for what you mean by unique, and you need to be able to support your claims with evidence.
Until you're willing to better articulate your position, I don't need to.
I wish you'd let me in on what they are. You seem to think that insulting Socrates or calling him "old" somehow disqualifies him for analagous consideration with Jesus. It doesn't. I picked Socrates because he was another rabble rousing "preacher" of sorts who managed to annoy the wrong people and get himself executed, just like Jesus. Of those two figures, we know that Socrates accepted his fate without complaint and didn't try to save himself and didn't renounce his own words or beliefs. we don't know what Jesus did. We don't have the same data. We have an eyewitness account of the death of Socrates. We have no similar data for Jesus. He might have behaved with equanimity, like Socrates or he might not have. Neither choice would have made him unique.

windsofchange

I've gotta say, this lack of respect for Socrates is disquieting, to say the least. Especially since historically, it is Christian apologists who have expressed the most admiration for him, and who have favorably compared his sacrifice with that of Jesus.

It's all very confusing to me. But then, I am but a simple fisherman.

Elijah

If I were Webster I guess: Someone who willingly orchestrates their own death, free of influence believing it will have some effect.

Not someone who is executed for being a jerk or died because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and pride kept them from running.

The problem with defining martyr by using words instead of examples is that “willingly” and free of influence/freewill are difficult words to understand especially coming from my POV. You run into the same semantics problem as were having with the word martyr.

It’s more important that you see the difference between what happened to Socrates and what Jesus was trying to do.

Jesus was trying to get himself killed because it was part of some grand plan; Socrates was just executed for being a jerk.

Malachi151

Elijah's claim is that no one's martyrdom counts unless they sacrificed themselves in order to change the whole world and bring eternal life and redemption to everyone.

The problems with this:

1) Of course no one prior to "Jesus" did this, because its a stupid insane idea, and only a fool would think that this is even possible.

2) Since the story of Jesus is itself a myth, this whole argument is stupid as we are talking about fiction here. This is like saying that no one prior to Luke Skywalker risked their lives to destroy a DeathStar.

3) Even if there was some Jesus fellow, the story about his sacrifice to "take on the sins of the world" is a mythological addition to any man laying beneath the surface, and the crucifiction narrative is all based on scriptures, not real events, thus there is no way to even discuss what this person did or didn't do or what their intention was or was not.

4) Wouldn't being a martyr for a lesser cause be even more noble? If someone came to me and said if you die on a cross you can bring eternal life to the whole world and solve all the world's problems, then even I would do that, this is a no-brainer. However, dying for your family, your country, or like Socrates, for freedom of speech, is a much bigger sacrifice, because you are dying for less.

Sorry, Elijah, your argument fails on all points.

Elijah

Story of Socrates

Socrates was told by an oracle that he was the smartest dude around
So he went around and tested all the towns folks insulting them along the way
He was tried for being a bad example to kids.
He was found guilty, then insults and mocks the jury of 500 at the sentencing and is given death by a larger margin then found him guilty.

If that sounds like the story of Christ to you then please please please re read the gospels.

At no point is it even eluded to that this is all part of some plan of Socrates. He was an old man with an ego too big. Socrates suggested his own punishment at the trial and it was a petty sum of money.

What exactly are the beliefs of Socrates, what did he die for, what was his message?

Elijah

Fact or fiction, at least you're admitting what he supposable did was new.

driver8

Your logic is interesting. You apparently don't believe in the divinity of Jesus (nor do I) yet you seem quite convinced that there really was a crucifixion event. If you don't believe the former, in what do you base your belief in the latter? The evidence for the two is the same. I suspect you're making the assumption that there must be a historical core to the Jesus story and there really was a crucifixion. Without belief in the NT, how can you make any judgement about Jesus' supposed actions or motivations to even classify him as a martyr? He might just as well have been run down in the street as crucified. You're selectively choosing the parts you want to believe, so you've damaged the very basis for your argument, and you're left with making assumptions.

Oh, so there was a grand plan? But no genie? What is the grand plan of the mortal Jesus? What is the cause this martyr died for, and what is your reference for describing this cause?