gmatthews said
gavriel said
I’m not quite sure Paul never met Jesus alive. This is debated, isn’t it? In order to experience a vision of J. Paul must have had some knowledge in order to recognize the “vision” as an appearance of J. I think it is likely that he saw him in public in Jerusalem at least once, preaching to a multitude or something. 2. Corinth 5.16 may be hinting at this.
People have visions all the time of people they’ve never met. Look at how many people claim to see the Virgin Mary. Consider how many claim to see Jesus in their morning toast.
Right. But in the case of a vision of the Virgin Mary, those having them have been spoon-fed with images of her in their communities since early childhood. I do not think that what I quoted is conclusive evidence, but that it supports the idea that Paul watched J. in public during a festival, is conceivable. It cannot be ruled out.
Years ago, I had the casual idea that the “Jesus” worshipped by Christians might have been formed from a conflation of events in the lives of several different men. Just because “Yeshua” was not only a common name in that era, but might also – as the Aramaic form of “Yehoshua” – have been an obvious choice as a spiritual name or a *nom de guerre*. But that was just an idea I toyed with; not being a believer, I didn’t really care, one way or the other.
Dr. Ehrman’s arguments were enough to convince me that there was one significant person at the heart of the story. That Paul (whose historicity isn’t in doubt) had claimed to have met one of Jesus’s brothers; and that there never had been prophecies of a “crucified Messiah” – meaning that followers of Jesus made claims to the contrary because they’d believed, before his death, that this man who had ultimately been crucified was the Messiah.
Why do some people resist the accounts that Christ was God, as given by those who later sacrificed their lives for what they proclaimed? They could have renounced it and avoided execution. Why would they willingly die for lying, when it wasn’t necessary? What is it about Jesus Christ that makes him so controversial?
prestonp said
Why do some people resist the accounts that Christ was God, as given by those who later sacrificed their lives for what they proclaimed? They could have renounced it and avoided execution. Why would they willingly die for lying, when it wasn’t necessary? What is it about Jesus Christ that makes him so controversial?
Certainly many did renounce it and avoided execution. That being said very many of them did not. I have toured the catacombs in Italy more than once. May I suggest that most died believing Jesus was Christ. Many died believing Zeus was real, the same is true of many Gods. Belief, no matter how passionate does not make a thing any more or less true. There is a difference between saying a thing that is not true and saying a thing that you know is not true. There is a tendency for the pulpit, either through omission or deliberate action, to do the latter. The existence of this site and many others make that self evident. Mormons believe that American Natives are decedents of a group of Jews that came to this continent before the time of Jesus. It is a foundation of their belief. Genetics prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that this claim is impossible. Yet, many millions hang on to this belief. Professing what one believes to be true has no shame, discouraging others from seeing truth does. Thinking is not a crime. Teaching people not to be critical of their beliefs is not a sin, its just wrong. In my opinion almost all of those who sacrificed their lives did not do it for a lie, they believed it to be true.
As to the first part of your question, it is not a matter of resisting anything for most of us. I do not, nor would I attempt to speak for all of us. In my experience most of us were Christians at some point. I can tell you from my own experience that coming to the realization that I no longer believed in Christ or Gods of any kind was very disturbing at first. Some of it was based on what I learned about scripture, Biblical history, and a Martin Luther kind of experience. Unlike him, I could no longer accept that lying to support those beliefs was honorable. Once I know something to be true, I can not faith it away. I have and will continue to defend a persons right to worship as they choose. Speaking for myself, I do not believe religious faith is a virtue. It is the celebration of willful ignorance. Best regards and thank you for your post.
prestonp said
Why do some people resist the accounts that Christ was God, as given by those who later sacrificed their lives for what they proclaimed? They could have renounced it and avoided execution. Why would they willingly die for lying, when it wasn’t necessary? What is it about Jesus Christ that makes him so controversial?
Why do some people resist the accounts that Buddha was enlightened, as given by those who later sacrificed their lives for what they proclaimed? They could have renounced it and avoided execution. Why would they willingly die for lying, when it wasn’t necessary? What is it about Buddha that makes him so controversial?
Why do some people resist the accounts that Mohammad was the Prophet of Allah, as given by those who later sacrificed their lives for what they proclaimed? They could have renounced it and avoided execution. Why would they willingly die for lying, when it wasn’t necessary? What is it about Mohammad that makes him so controversial?
Why do some people resist the accounts that Krishna was God, as given by those who later sacrificed their lives for what they proclaimed? They could have renounced it and avoided execution. Why would they willingly die for lying, when it wasn’t necessary? What is it about Krishna that makes him so controversial?
etc
etc
etc…
“May I suggest that most died believing Jesus was Christ.”
Let me try again. This has nothing to do with believing anything. Many of the early disciples, those responsible for creating and spreading the “hoax” of christianity, (according to those who believe it was a hoax) for deliberately misleading people, (embellishing Mary’s biography as a virgin giving birth to god, etc.) and creating the fabrications about Christ’s resurrection, etc. were executed for refusing to give up the bologna they invented.
They could have walked away. Instead, holding on to their own lies (that they started) about some god dude that they themselves made up, willingly faced execution; it had nothing to do with believing someone else’s lies. They lied. And they were killed because they wouldn’t acknowledge their own lies to themselves! I am not referring to others who died because they sincerely believed those lies. I am talking about the liars themselves. They knew they had been lying and were responsible for creating the jesus hoax. All that garbage in the N.T. was their doing.
Stephen said
Why do some people resist the accounts that Krishna was God, as given by those who later sacrificed their lives for what they proclaimed? They could have renounced it and avoided execution. Why would they willingly die for lying, when it wasn’t necessary? What is it about Krishna that makes him so controversial?
This is somewhat off track but I’ve been fascinated over the last few years to learn in India there are fundamentalists who are insisting on a literalist view of their scriptures. The reason it is being brought up is because they want the education system to be teaching the religion that way. The reason it is being written about in the US is because Wendy Doniger’s books taking a historical viewpoint are under particular fire. The similarities with US Christian fundamentalists is startling.
Azeus, “Many died believing Zeus was real,”
You mean many died “for/because of” their faith that zeus lived?
Azeus,
“There is a difference between saying a thing that is not true and saying a thing that you know is not true. There is a tendency for the pulpit, either through omission or deliberate action, to do the latter.”
For example:
Azeus, “…I could no longer accept that lying to support those beliefs was honorable”
Well, that’s good. At one time you believed it was honorable to lie to support your faith?
Azeus, “faith… is the celebration of willful ignorance.”
Faith has nothing to do with willful ignorance. Saying it does is willful ignorance.
Jesus just asked pete for the third time if he loved him. Pete says to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”
Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. 18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.”
Pete is one of the alleged perpetrators of the hoax. He dies rather than saying, “Okay boys. You got me. I was just playin! You all took me too seriously. I’ll be going now.”
prestonp said
Pete is one of the alleged perpetrators of the hoax. He dies rather than saying, “Okay boys. You got me. I was just playin! You all took me too seriously. I’ll be going now.”
There is no hoax involved and no one was lying. After Jesus’ death, different groups interpreted his life and death in many ways. His life and death was interpreted in different cultures, different countries and different languages. What became accepted as orthodox was interpretation by gentiles speaking Greek in Syria, Greece and Rome in contrast to Jesus who was Jewish speaking Aramaic in Galilee.
Christology and deification trivialize the very human Jesus. They drain any meaning from his very human death by turning him into a magician who did tricks for the crowds and died knowing he was just returning to heaven as God. Mark describes Jesus’ death as someone dying feeling forsaken by God. Jesus died a human death that we all face and that is where meaning can be found.
prestonp said
Azeus, “Many died believing Zeus was real,”You mean many died “for/because of” their faith that zeus lived?
Azeus,
“There is a difference between saying a thing that is not true and saying a thing that you know is not true. There is a tendency for the pulpit, either through omission or deliberate action, to do the latter.”
For example:
Azeus, “…I could no longer accept that lying to support those beliefs was honorable”
Well, that’s good. At one time you believed it was honorable to lie to support your faith?
Azeus, “faith… is the celebration of willful ignorance.”
Faith has nothing to do with willful ignorance. Saying it does is willful ignorance.
Yes, ‘for/because of’ would be accurate. It is a figurative statement meaning that many others died ‘for/because of’ their faith or lack of a professed faith in many Gods. This has been going on probably since faith in Gods of any kind started. Socrates was reported to have been killed because he refused to accept the Gods of his time and for corrupting the youth of his day with other ideas.
Yes. So did Martin Luther, at one point I did make statements that I came to understand were not true, but I continued to say them in support of my faith. As my understanding of what I knew grew, it became a matter of conscience for me. As I stopped saying things that I knew were not true, I had little left to profess.
Mark Twain stated that faith is believing what you know ain’t so. What eroded my faith was knowledge. Once I knew that some of my beliefs were wrong the only way I could have kept my faith would have been through willful ignorance. I should qualify that statement with the preface ‘For me…’
“Paul never met Jesus.” milkyway
Are you sure?
“Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
Hi prestonp, I get the impression that you are pressing “why the disciples of Jesus would have died for a message if that message was based on a lie”. My insightful answer is … I don’t know.
But I have an opinion on an associated issue, and that is regarding the idea that most of the original believers died for this message. In my opinion, this is not very certain and for a lot of the original twelve we only have folklore, making it difficult to ascertain this historically.
It is reasonable to think that Paul was executed in Rome and at there is some tradition that Peter was also executed in Rome (mainly from early orthodox biased sources). It should be mentioned that those who died in Rome, died apparently because the Christians were accused by Nero as having started a fire, and NOT because they were defending the gospel.
Three martyrdoms are mentioned in the NT; James the brother of John (Acts 12.2), Stephen who was accused against speaking blasphemous words against “Moses an God” (Acts 6.11) and “Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city” (Rev 2.13b) . The Josephus passage re the execution of James appears to be related to James, Jesus’ brother and seems to be related to pissing off the High Priest Ananus for some reason.
So of these, only a few might actually be related to defending the gospel but it’s hard to know for sure.
In my opinion, the idea that many early Christians were willing to die for the gospel seems not that easy to actually prove, and is more likely to be related to apologetic dogma. The idea that early Christians were willing to die for “the message” is mainly of theological origin in my opinion.
Hi prestonp, I get the impression that you are pressing “why the disciples of Jesus would have died for a message if that message was based on a lie”. My insightful answer is … I don’t know.
Well, let’s think about it. Why would someone tell a bunch of lies and then allow themselves to be executed for their lies, when they could have walked away?
First, though, let me try again. No. My question is not, “Why would they die if the message they were dying for was a lie.”
The question is, “Why would they die for a message filled with lies that they themselves created and spread?” It was they who began the sham about the resurrection, knowing it was a sham. They invented the resurrection! They knew there was no resurrection. But they fabricated the N.T. lies that there was one and got taken out for it. Why? Why would anyone die for a “cause” or a “message” they themselves created when they didn’t have to?
Judith said
He taught that we could think of God as Abba (my papa in Heaven), that we are to love God with all our heart, love ourselves and love others as we love ourselves.
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.
Jim5 said
Hi prestonp, I get the impression that you are pressing “why the disciples of Jesus would have died for a message if that message was based on a lie”. My insightful answer is … I don’t know.But I have an opinion on an associated issue, and that is regarding the idea that most of the original believers died for this message. In my opinion, this is not very certain and for a lot of the original twelve we only have folklore, making it difficult to ascertain this historically.
It is reasonable to think that Paul was executed in Rome and at there is some tradition that Peter was also executed in Rome (mainly from early orthodox biased sources). It should be mentioned that those who died in Rome, died apparently because the Christians were accused by Nero as having started a fire, and NOT because they were defending the gospel.
Three martyrdoms are mentioned in the NT; James the brother of John (Acts 12.2), Stephen who was accused against speaking blasphemous words against “Moses an God” (Acts 6.11) and “Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city” (Rev 2.13b) . The Josephus passage re the execution of James appears to be related to James, Jesus’ brother and seems to be related to pissing off the High Priest Ananus for some reason.
So of these, only a few might actually be related to defending the gospel but it’s hard to know for sure.
In my opinion, the idea that many early Christians were willing to die for the gospel seems not that easy to actually prove, and is more likely to be related to apologetic dogma. The idea that early Christians were willing to die for “the message” is mainly of theological origin in my opinion.
I agree that the strength of this argument weakens if the hardship suffered by the “believers” was moderate. They might even have had some gain in establishing positions as leaders, economically supported by the community.
Theoretically, the group of original disciples may have made up the basic message in some way and for some reason. We do not know if Paul originally found the physical plot behind the new belief true or not, but the religious message built on it made him a strong opponent to it. Later he came to embrace it, and it is hard to believe that he was fooled on the basic facts of trial and execution. He says emphatically that there was an execution throughout his letters, and once in a veiled reference that it took place in Jerusalem. The fabrication hypothesis comes dangerously close to conspiracy theory thinking. It is very hard to maintain a public lie in the middle of a big city. Probably everybody in Jerusalem had heard the story of the nutter who went around kicking down tables in the merchants area of the temple, during the festival, and suffered a public, horrible execution afterwards. It would have been very difficult to invent such a story if it had not taken place. If so, we should have seen literary echoes of a Jewish reaction to it, with accusations of fabrication. In place of this there is a Jewish reaction to the labeling of such a miserable figure “Messiah”.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)