A Question for Atheist or Anyone

[ShadowsCool]

I don't want this to become an all-out shouting match, matching one's belief's with another belief's. I feel that just endlessly misses the point.

What I want to know is, in your opinion, why would certain apostles of Christ go to their deaths, when they had a choice to denounce him? If what they purportedly witnessed (some first hand) or fabricated, then why would they willingly go to their deaths for a made-up story?

From all accounts I have read, some just had to denounce Christ and they would be spared death. Why would a sane person (supposing they were) die willingly for nothing?

Shadows

[Charles Darnay]

Forgive the tautology of this but it is because they were literally willing to die for their beliefs. Whether any individual (now or then) thinks their beliefs are accurate or completely fabricated, that doesn't matter. To the apostles (the faithful ones I guess) everything that is written is true, and to deny it would be a far worse fate than death. Many people throughout history, both great and small, have died for their beliefs, whatever they may have been.

[BienvenuJDC]

Forgive the tautology of this but it is because they were literally willing to die for their beliefs. Whether any individual (now or then) thinks their beliefs are accurate or completely fabricated, that doesn't matter. To the apostles (the faithful ones I guess) everything that is written is true, and to deny it would be a far worse fate than death. Many people throughout history, both great and small, have died for their beliefs, whatever they may have been.

To the Apostles...we are talking about THOSE who wrote it down. These were the eyewitnesses. They weren't just believing what they read. They were believing what they SAW.

[Charles Darnay]

To the Apostles...we are talking about THOSE who wrote it down. These were the eyewitnesses. They weren't just believing what they read. They were believing what they SAW.

Yes, but that is the contention isn't it? Were they strictly eye-witnesses - I have heard arguments for both "yes" and "no." But when I said that they believe in everything that is written, I did not mean to imply that they were reading it and not writing it - it was just my way of expressing what their beliefs are (what is written in the New Testament)

[BienvenuJDC]

Yes, but that is the contention isn't it? Were they strictly eye-witnesses - I have heard arguments for both "yes" and "no." But when I said that they believe in everything that is written, I did not mean to imply that they were reading it and not writing it - it was just my way of expressing what their beliefs are (what is written in the New Testament)

If you were writing about spectacular events (of eternal significance) that you witnessed yourself, would you believe them with complete certainty? Would you hold fast to those beliefs even if it would cost you your physical life in exchange for an eternal life? The original question is...Why would anyone sacrifice their lives for a lie?

[Varenne Rodin]

Personally, I'm not interested in the actions of apostles. I could say that I'm an apostle. I could write things down. I could go to my death swearing I'm right. People want to be believed. In the time of the apostles, life was pretty lame. Not much to do. Short lifespans. Who knows? What have they seen lately? That's what I care about. Where are the eye witnesses of God and Jesus? Is there video up on youtube? Hearsay is simply that. Testimony under duress is indicative of nothing. Were any of the apostles under the influence of hallucinogens? Were they pathological liars? There is no way of knowing. Your problem is that human beings are fallible. If you want to believe that the bible stories are true, cool. What does it matter to you if some people are unconvinced? Why seek the atheist opinion? You probably already know what it's going to be. EXTRAORDINARY claims require EXTRAORDINARY evidence. Until you get some, why not stop trying to drag us into the muck of your dogmatism?

Why did entire Greek civilizations go to war for their gods? Gods that have since been pretty much ruled out. It's a rallying cry.

[ShadowsCool]

What does it matter to you if some people are unconvinced? Why seek the atheist opinion? You probably already know what it's going to be. EXTRAORDINARY claims require EXTRAORDINARY evidence. Until you get some, why not stop trying to drag us into the muck of your dogmatism?

Why did your answer condescend my question. Maybe my innocent question struck a nerve?

I was asking a question. I just wanted to know an atheist point of view on it. As far as my muck of dogmatism, that's your opinion, not mine. I just wanted to know what people thought of that. That is how we learn things, no?


Why did entire Greek civilizations go to war for their gods? Gods that have since been pretty much ruled out. It's a rallying cry.

That to me is quite different then being in front of a judge and him saying, denounce Christ and I will let you go. But they choose a horrible death instead. See my point?

[BienvenuJDC]

In the time of the apostles, life was pretty lame. Not much to do. Short lifespans.

You're not a history major are you?

John lived to be in his 90s. The Roman Empire was connecting the cultures into a multicultural society of travel and commerce. There was SO much to do.

[Charles Darnay]

If you were writing about spectacular events (of eternal significance) that you witnessed yourself, would you believe them with complete certainty? Would you hold fast to those beliefs even if it would cost you your physical life in exchange for an eternal life? The original question is...Why would anyone sacrifice their lives for a lie?

The problem is that there are a few threads that have to be followed - because there are no strict "facts" here. Here is the way I personally view it.

Option 1:

The apostles did not actually witness first-hand the events described in the New Testament. Therefore, they were not lying but truly believed (to the point that they were willing to die for it) what they had written/what had happened.

Option 2:

The apostles witnessed the events first hand - everything they wrote was true and they were willing to die for their beliefs because they knew them to be true.

Option 3:

The apostles witnessed the events first hand - and stretched the truth, or extended it to the realm of metaphor. They were willing to die for their beliefs because their death would only further the legitimacy of Christianity.

Now, how do you extract a simple answer from three opposing views. Well, if we look at the New Testament - with the exception of a few "miracles" and the Resurrection itself, most of what is written is believable. That is, whatever you think of Jesus, it is entirely believable that he said what he is said to have said (sorry). Jesus said he was the son of god and they believed him - this is not so hard to accept.

As for the "miracles" and "Resurrection" - well it is hard to accept that they had empirical evidence of these.

So why wouldn't the apostles lie to save their lives? There is a reason - the realization that their deaths would mean the success of Christianity - but I personally believe that they (in their views) were not lying. Exaggerations, yes - but not lies.

[papayahed]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic or inflammatory posts will be removed without further reminder.

~

[Charles Darnay]

In the time of the apostles, life was pretty lame. Not much to do. Short lifespans.

If only the Colosseum had been built 100 years earlier - we might still be worshiping Jupiter! (actually this would make an interesting alternate-reality story. Kind of the Fahrenheit 451 idea of keeping people constantly entertained so they don't come up with questions, or new thoughts.)

[papayahed]

I don't want this to become an all-out shouting match, matching one's belief's with another belief's. I feel that just endlessly misses the point.

What I want to know is, in your opinion, why would certain apostles of Christ go to their deaths, when they had a choice to denounce him? If what they purportedly witnessed (some first hand) or fabricated, then why would they willingly go to their deaths for a made-up story?

From all accounts I have read, some just had to denounce Christ and they would be spared death. Why would a sane person (supposing they were) die willingly for nothing?

Shadows

People do crazy things, take for example the Heaven's Gate group, Charles Mansion's "family", and Jonestown just to name a few.

[Varenne Rodin]

That to me is quite different then being in front of a judge and him saying, denounce Christ and I will let you go. But they choose a horrible death instead. See my point?

Nope.

[ShadowsCool]

Remind me never to ask another question again

[Charles Darnay]

Remind me never to ask another question again

Nothing good ever comes of it :)

But let me put this hypothetical question to you....

You are told that the Bible is pure fiction, that God never existed, that you must publicly denounce everything written in the Bible, that you cannot talk about, write about, promote in any way, display in any way a belief that reflects Christianity. You must teach your children evolution and explain that the scientific view of the world is the only one. You cannot celebrate any holidays. Failure to do any of this will result in your horrible death - which would you choose?

[ShadowsCool]

:eek:


Nothing good ever comes of it :)

But let me put this hypothetical question to you....

You are told that the Bible is pure fiction, that God never existed, that you must publicly denounce everything written in the Bible, that you cannot talk about, write about, promote in any way, display in any way a belief that reflects Christianity. You must teach your children evolution and explain that the scientific view of the world is the only one. You cannot celebrate any holidays. Failure to do any of this will result in your horrible death - which would you choose?

Mmm, death rather than pose another question on lit-net?

I think I miss your point. I gotta give up everything I've come to know and If I fail to do this, I get death? So would I choose a life that I don't believe in to save my life? You see that all depends. I don't think Christianity is based on a believer believing. I know that sounds weird, and there are many exceptions of people going over board believing nutty stuff. But I believe it is something that grasp your soul. I mean that's my experience, though I'm sure others would say I'm nuts.

[Charles Darnay]

My point is that this is basically what the apostles were faced with - a life (and lives of their children) that they "knew" to be false, or death. They chose death.

Not being so attached to religion, I would choose life in this instance. But, if for example, I was told I had to burn all my books and to never read another book in my life, or to never write....I might choose death over this option because I am so attached to books.

[Varenne Rodin]

A simpler question for Christians: If you were threatened with death, would you renounce god?

[ShadowsCool]

A simpler question for Christians: If you were threatened with death, would you renounce god?

I suppose you're a Christian Authority? I sense a tone with your question. Respect my belief and I your's!

My answer would be, let the lions eat me alive.

[Charles Darnay]

I suppose you're a Christian Authority? I sense a tone with your question. Respect my belief and I your's!


I don't see how...it really just answers your original question.

[Varenne Rodin]

I suppose you're a Christian Authority? I sense a tone with your question. Respect my belief and I your's!

My answer would be, let the lions eat me alive.

They say that in text we imagine our own voice in the posts of others. I respect you, I don't have to respect Christianity. It isn't a being with feelings, it's an organization.

You would have the lions eat you alive, and yet you have never seen Jesus Christ in the flesh. My point is that people will die based on principle. It's not proof of "eye witnessing" anything.

For those imagining a tone, there was only a tone in the single post I made that was a personal attack directed at a specific individual. Admittedly, I insulted a fellow lit-netter. I'm in a good mood today though. I was directly responding to a personal demeaning of my intelligence and educational status. I rarely take things seriously, but I've worked hard, and continue to work hard toward building my education.

Beyond that single matter, I feel no ill will toward anyone here.

[ShadowsCool]

I don't see how...it really just answers your original question.

My original question went something like this:

Originally Posted by ShadowsCool
I don't want this to become an all-out shouting match, matching one's belief's with another belief's. I feel that just endlessly misses the point.

What I want to know is, in your opinion, why would certain apostles of Christ go to their deaths, when they had a choice to denounce him? If what they purportedly witnessed (some first hand) or fabricated, then why would they willingly go to their deaths for a made-up story?

From all accounts I have read, some just had to denounce Christ and they would be spared death. Why would a sane person (supposing they were) die willingly for nothing?

Shadows

[ShadowsCool]

Until you get some, why not stop trying to drag us into the muck of your dogmatism?

You posted that at 7:00. That was directed at me. But I don't want to get into all that. I asked a question and I see no one has a concrete answer. I'm sorry to say.

[Varenne Rodin]

You posted that at 7:00. That was directed at me. But I don't want to get into all that. I asked a question and I see no one has a concrete answer. I'm sorry to say.

Your thread was addressed first to atheists. My question is genuine. What is it about the atheist opinion that you would find valuable? I haven't seen any indication that you respect skeptical or cynical viewpoints. Am I incorrect? If so, in what way? There is no tone here.

[ShadowsCool]

Your thread was addressed first to atheists. My question is genuine. What is it about the atheist opinion that you would find valuable? I haven't seen any indication that you respect skeptical or cynical viewpoints. Am I incorrect? If so, in what way? There is no tone here.

Basically I would like to get into the frame of mind of an atheists and his point of view. Is that so bad? I'm not looking to put anyone down. Like you said, people read into things that are not there. I also said or anyone. But specifically, I find it fascinating that someone may go to their deaths believing a hollow lie. First account eyewitnesses I'm talking about. You would think they'd give up the ghost and say, yeah, game up, I'll live.

I respect all creeds and beliefs. If I ask a black person what it was like to be living in the south in the 60's, would that make me a nut? Just posing a question to a specific group, that's all. If an atheist don't have an answer, then I move on. But remind me not ask another question again. I'll stick to harmless poetry.

[BienvenuJDC]

A simpler question for Christians: If you were threatened with death, would you renounce god?

No, I would not.

[Varenne Rodin]

Basically I would like to get into the frame of mind of an atheists and his point of view. Is that so bad? I'm not looking to put anyone down. Like you said, people read into things that are not there. I also said or anyone. But specifically, I find it fascinating that someone may go to their deaths believing a hollow lie. First account eyewitnesses I'm talking about. You would think they'd give up the ghost and say, yeah, game up, I'll live.

I respect all creeds and beliefs. If I ask a black person what it was like to be living in the south in the 60's, would that make me a nut? Just posing a question to a specific group, that's all. If an atheist don't have an answer, then I move on. But remind me not ask another question again. I'll stick to harmless poetry.

Fair enough. My initial response is that I don't have much interest in why the apostles made the choices they did, because that has nothing to do with why I'm an atheist, and Christianity isn't an important part of my life.

If someone asked me why I think some people choose to use a wedge over a 9 iron in golf, I would have to say that I don't play golf, so I'm the wrong person to ask. Christianity isn't my religion, it's yours. My anti-Christianity stance can only be a negative for Christians, unless they chuck it all and join team science, but I don't expect that to happen. In other words, I'm not trying to harm or disrespect anyone by saying, "Hey, I don't believe this." If you invite my opinion, knowing that you sincerely believe in that which you believe in, you will find us at odds on this particular subject.

You might tell me you love the Eagles. I hate the Eagles. No amount of telling me that their catalogue of songs greatly influenced the direction of classic rock will make me believe it's so.

I view being an atheist like that. It's as small in my life as the kind of music, books, or movies I like. It's a category in my persona. I'm told that for Christians, their religion is their whole world and existence, it gives meaning to their lives and etc. I think this makes it difficult for a Christian to disassociate criticisms of the religion from criticisms of themselves. I like Japanese pop music. If you tell me you hate it, I won't take it as a personal attack. I hate Christianity, but not Christians. I hope you don't take that as a personal attack. I also hope this answers your original question better than my first attempt.


No, I would not.

Ok, cool. Following that, if you now tell me you eye witnessed Jesus Christ in town somewhere, should I believe you (based only on the knowledge that you would die upholding what you believe to be true)?

[ShadowsCool]

I live around many atheist myself. My brother for one, my step-dad another, not to mention my entire family and basically 95% of people I know don't believe in Christianity; not from a real sense of it's true principals. So I'm no hater, as a matter of fact, if someone brought something to my attention regarding my faith I'd be glad to answer them. I wouldn't attack the wording of their question unless they attacked me specifically, then it's fair game.

I think the problem with Christianity with most people is it makes no sense to them. But It's not supposed to make sense. It's about believing the unbelievable. If God came down and said, here, I'm gonna walk on water, now do you believe me? Of course, I would seriously consider it. But then what would be the point of us dying then? Wouldn't we all be in good with God?

My opinion regarding the question I posed is, I think they saw something and believed in it; and to the point of even death obviously. That seems pretty rational. Something a non believer might get into, rational thinking.


Fair enough. My initial response is that I don't have much interest in why the apostles made the choices they did, because that has nothing to do with why I'm an atheist, and Christianity isn't an important part of my life.

If someone asked me why I think some people choose to use a wedge over a 9 iron in golf, I would have to say that I don't play golf, so I'm the wrong person to ask. Christianity isn't my religion, it's yours. My anti-Christianity stance can only be a negative for Christians, unless they chuck it all and join team science, but I don't expect that to happen. In other words, I'm not trying to harm or disrespect anyone by saying, "Hey, I don't believe this." If you invite my opinion, knowing that you sincerely believe in that which you believe in, you will find us at odds on this particular subject.

You might tell me you love the Eagles. I hate the Eagles. No amount of telling me that their catalogue of songs greatly influenced the direction of classic rock will make me believe it's so.

I view being an atheist like that. It's as small in my life as the kind of music, books, or movies I like. It's a category in my persona. I'm told that for Christians, their religion is their whole world and existence, it gives meaning to their lives and etc. I think this makes it difficult for a Christian to disassociate criticisms of the religion from criticisms of themselves. I like Japanese pop music. If you tell me you hate it, I won't take it as a personal attack. I hate Christianity, but not Christians. I hope you don't take that as a personal attack. I also hope this answers your original question better than my first attempt.

I hope it's nothing personal cause I didn't do anything to cause a problem. I was just curious and I guess curiosity killed the cat. You believe in Logical thinking. You believe in Science. I believe in both of them to a point. I believe in divine thinking. I believe in Wisdom. I think that's why we are budding heads. Our thoughts clash big time. But that doesn't mean we can't respect each other as people. I hope we can at least.

[Varenne Rodin]

I hope it's nothing personal cause I didn't do anything to cause a problem. I was just curious and I guess curiosity killed the cat. You believe in Logical thinking. You believe in Science. I believe in both of them to a point. I believe in divine thinking. I believe in Wisdom. I think that's why we are budding heads. Our thoughts clash big time. But that doesn't mean we can't respect each other as people. I hope we can at least.

Yeah, we're cool. I don't believe in science though. Science to me is just a system of testing and utilizing the physical world. It's like saying I believe in the sun, or my television set. I don't have to believe in it because it's right there. Also, I don't think I have firm answers on why we exist. For all I know, this could all be a dream. I have to question accounts that say we know why we're here. I'm like a really thorough jury member. I would have to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt. Eye witness accounts don't do anything for me. I'm too aware of how dishonest people can be. I also know that people frequently die for all sorts of reasons; some of them stupid and/or selfish. Still, I don't think seeking to convert atheists to Christianity will benefit anything. I'm very happy as I am. I've read and understand the possible consequences for being a non-believer if it turns out that a god exists. I simply don't care. I care about what happens now. In this life. This is where I'm at. :)

[BienvenuJDC]

Ok, cool. Following that, if you now tell me you eye witnessed Jesus Christ in town somewhere, should I believe you (based only on the knowledge that you would die upholding what you believe to be true)?

I never said that my faith was based on the same kind of evidence as the apostles.

[ShadowsCool]

Still, I don't think seeking to convert atheists to Christianity will benefit anything. I'm very happy as I am. I've read and understand the possible consequences for being a non-believer if it turns out that a god exists. I simply don't care. I care about what happens now. In this life. This is where I'm at. :)


For whatever reason, I don't think it was up to me either. This whole notion that we get to pick who we believe in, may not be true either. I believe some are picked to believe and others are not. When someone is not picked to believe then it don't matter, they won't believe. I don't even try to convert someone to Christianity, cause most think I'm crazy to believe. They tell me I can say god bless you to someone to be polite, but if I mention anything but an Easter bunny for Easter, they'll call the insane asylum on me.

[Varenne Rodin]

I never said that my faith was based on the same kind of evidence as the apostles.

I was just making a point for the purpose of answering the OT. Do the deaths of the apostles make me wonder if they were telling the truth? Not any more than I would wonder about any human being who chooses to die for religious reasons.

[BienvenuJDC]

I was just making a point for the purpose of answering the OT. Do the deaths of the apostles make me wonder if they were telling the truth? Not any more than I would wonder about any human being who chooses to die for religious reasons.

I also wonder why someone would kill me due to my own religious beliefs.

[ShadowsCool]

I also wonder why someone would kill me due to my own religious beliefs.

Because people are nuts

[Varenne Rodin]

I also wonder why someone would kill me due to my own religious beliefs.

That's a better question. People shouldn't kill people as a reaction to religious beliefs. People also shouldn't tell other people that they're evil and will burn in hell simply because they have different beliefs or none at all.


For whatever reason, I don't think it was up to me either. This whole notion that we get to pick who we believe in, may not be true either. I believe some are picked to believe and others are not. When someone is not picked to believe then it don't matter, they won't believe. I don't even try to convert someone to Christianity, cause most think I'm crazy to believe. They tell me I can say god bless you to someone to be polite, but if I mention anything but an Easter bunny for Easter, they'll call the insane asylum on me.

People are picked to believe? Why does god make non-believers, in that case? Does he want his "children" set against each other? And what of free will? I was always told we had to choose to have faith (told by churches I attended). I don't care what people think about Easter. It has its roots in many religions and rituals.

[ShadowsCool]

People are picked to believe? Why does god make non-believers, in that case? Does he want his "children" set against each other? And what of free will? I was always told we had to choose to have faith (told by churches I attended). I don't care what people think about Easter. It has its roots in many religions and rituals.

Well you must try and understand that the Bible does not clearly talk about everything under the sun. Much of salvation is cloaked in mystery. For instance, the word "elect", what does that mean? The "One's" the Father gave me, what does that mean? Jesus saying, I know the "One" who will betray me, and better it is that he never be born. What does that mean? Yet it also mentions, "if one cry's out for mercy", so I believe we call that a paradox. Something that can be both and the same. You must understand, the Bible was not written for most people to understand. It was actually written for two reasons. One to speak of salvation for the "chosen". And two, as a testimony against the rest of the world cloaked in darkness. THE BIBLE WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN FOR DISBELIEF. The gospel is actually supposed to sound "foolish" to the rest of the world. And it certainly has accomplished its mission; as hard as that may sound. It was written for "certain" people to hear and respond to the "Word" and be brought to God. A Mystery because a man is not supposed to know everything about God otherwise we'd be God.

I know that's a long winded answer but it's late and that's the best way I could explain it at this hour. And I'm perfectly sane.

[YesNo]

Basically I would like to get into the frame of mind of an atheists and his point of view. Is that so bad? I'm not looking to put anyone down. Like you said, people read into things that are not there. I also said or anyone. But specifically, I find it fascinating that someone may go to their deaths believing a hollow lie. First account eyewitnesses I'm talking about. You would think they'd give up the ghost and say, yeah, game up, I'll live.
People will not only go to their deaths for a hollow lie, they will also kill for a hollow lie.

I don't know how many of the original apostles were actually martyred, but dying or killing for one's beliefs does not provide any good evidence for that belief. I find a religion suspect that sanctifies martyrdom and a religion disgusting that claims God was on its side after slaughtering its enemies. That goes for atheism as well, by the way, which I consider to be a religion.

[ShadowsCool]

People will not only go to their deaths for a hollow lie, they will also kill for a hollow lie.

I don't know how many of the original apostles were actually martyred, but dying or killing for one's beliefs does not provide any good evidence for that belief. I find a religion suspect that sanctifies martyrdom and a religion disgusting that claims God was on its side after slaughtering its enemies. That goes for atheism as well, by the way, which I consider to be a religion.

Okay, let me ask you a logical question, okay?

What if you saw me walking on water (play along) and you saw me calm the storms, and you saw me come back to life, and you saw me cure the blind, and raised the dead. Now you were apprehended about this a few years later and told to denounce your silly religion or I will behead you, or stone you or hang you upside down and crucify you, or you can live. Which would you choose? Let's not get other circumstances to confuse the issue. There are always exceptions to everything, but that don't make it a valid point to use. And who sanctifies martyrdom? The Bible does not once do such a thing. Maybe the Catholic Church did, but that's different. Apples (Bible) Oranges (Catholic Church) don't confuse the two.

And from all reports, 11 were martyred.

This whole notion that God somehow is begging sinners to come to Him is ludicrous. God may desire fallen man to come to Him, but God knows who will and who won't. He leaves a way out for someone not choosen to cry out for mercy, and that's about it. THIS DOCTRINE IS SUPPOSED TO BE HARD TO TAKE AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE REJECTED BY THE WORLD. That's its very purpose. To be rejected by the world, just as God's Son was!

And one other thing. Jesus "choose" the twelve apostles, not the other way around. He also "choose" the "one" who would betray Him. That means He knew beforehand that He would be betrayed by this man. Yet "Judas" in reality had a choice. Free will to give in to his greed of money or choose God. So it was his fault. This was done to "fulfill" the gospel. That's it in a nutshell.

Let me get off this before they scream out "heresy"

Goodnight

[OrphanPip]

What I want to know is, in your opinion, why would certain apostles of Christ go to their deaths, when they had a choice to denounce him? If what they purportedly witnessed (some first hand) or fabricated, then why would they willingly go to their deaths for a made-up story?

From all accounts I have read, some just had to denounce Christ and they would be spared death. Why would a sane person (supposing they were) die willingly for nothing?


Well there are a number of problems with the question. First of all, if one were to doubt the historicity of the gospels, then stories of martyrdom themselves would be under question.

I don't really get the point of the question, I doubt many people are all that sceptical about the faith of the authors of the gospels. The thing is that they could have quite sincerely believed what they wrote without having written down what had actually happened. As has been pointed out by Charles, they could have believed what they were writing was true in a metaphorical sense, rather than an accurate account of the life of Jesus. History as we understand it as an impartial account of the pass was not a fully developed genre during the period. Historical narratives from the period often combined mythology with hearsay and other such accounts. I think it's not always accurate to look at the Bible as a historical account, because the authors did not think they were writing an impartial history.

[JuniperWoolf]

Well, threatening someone with physical violence or death in order to make them agree with you is just terrorism, the belief or idea that they're making you renounce (be it religious, political or moral) is consequential. I admire people who die rather than allowing themselves to be forcefully converted. I like to think I'd die before allowing someone to physically force me to agree with them, but that's easy to say when you're not the one being tortured.

[ShadowsCool]

Well there are a number of problems with the question. First of all, if one were to doubt the historicity of the gospels, then stories of martyrdom themselves would be under question.

I don't really get the point of the question, I doubt many people are all that sceptical about the faith of the authors of the gospels. The thing is that they could have quite sincerely believed what they wrote without having written down what had actually happened. As has been pointed out by Charles, they could have believed what they were writing was true in a metaphorical sense, rather than an accurate account of the life of Jesus. History as we understand it as an impartial account of the pass was not a fully developed genre during the period. Historical narratives from the period often combined mythology with hearsay and other such accounts. I think it's not always accurate to look at the Bible as a historical account, because the authors did not think they were writing an impartial history.

My question was pretty basic. Why die for a lie? I think everyone else is trying to make more of the question than it is. I think they all followed Jesus, no? So unless accounts are false, they died for him.

[JuniperWoolf]

Ohhh, those apostles. *shrug* Who knows, it was two thousand years ago.

[YesNo]

Okay, let me ask you a logical question, okay?

What if you saw me walking on water (play along) and you saw me calm the storms, and you saw me come back to life, and you saw me cure the blind, and raised the dead. Now you were apprehended about this a few years later and told to denounce your silly religion or I will behead you, or stone you or hang you upside down and crucify you, or you can live. Which would you choose? Let's not get other circumstances to confuse the issue. There are always exceptions to everything, but that don't make it a valid point to use. And who sanctifies martyrdom? The Bible does not once do such a thing. Maybe the Catholic Church did, but that's different. Apples (Bible) Oranges (Catholic Church) don't confuse the two.

And from all reports, 11 were martyred.
Too many discussions on these forums get sidetracked as soon as someone says the word "logic". I don't want to sidetrack this. My position on logic is that anyone can use logic to justify anything. Start with different assumptions, accept different facts and anyone can correctly derive anything.

Regarding the choice between death and denying my beliefs, I would take a third option--I would do my best to not let them catch me in the first place to put me to that stupid test. In fact, those morons wouldn't even know what I believed in. Why give them something to use against me or my family or community?

If I were cornered, my first concern would be to protect and not betray any others who were subject to getting caught as well and that would include using physical force or telling my captors any lies whatsoever. And I would try to escape. At least that is what I hope I would do.

I suspect your use of martyrdom as a justification for faith is based on the fact that Jesus was killed by Pilate and there is some bizarre value in imitating this death. I don't see how dying for some belief or killing others for some belief in any way justifies that belief. The only justification for a belief that I would accept is how the believers live their lives (and by believers I include atheists). For example, if they want me to give their belief a second glance they best not be fighting within their families.

[OrphanPip]

My question was pretty basic. Why die for a lie? I think everyone else is trying to make more of the question than it is. I think they all followed Jesus, no? So unless accounts are false, they died for him.

I don't get what you don't understand, my post fully answers that question. You're presenting a false dichotomy: either the gospels are absolutely true or absolutely false. I'm telling you this is a problematic assumption because what the apostles might of thought was the important "truth" of the gospels was not their historical accuracy or the objective detailing of events. Likewise, believing what one writes is not the same as demonstrating the veracity of what one writes.

I'll return to what I said in my post, I don't think many people doubt the sincerity of faith of the apostles, and I don't see what the point of such a debate is. Doubting the likelihood of the events as described in the gospels is not the same as thinking that early Christians were pathological liars, which is what you're trying to reduce it to.

[cafolini]

Because people are nuts

No kidding.


Well there are a number of problems with the question. First of all, if one were to doubt the historicity of the gospels, then stories of martyrdom themselves would be under question.

I don't really get the point of the question, I doubt many people are all that sceptical about the faith of the authors of the gospels. The thing is that they could have quite sincerely believed what they wrote without having written down what had actually happened. As has been pointed out by Charles, they could have believed what they were writing was true in a metaphorical sense, rather than an accurate account of the life of Jesus. History as we understand it as an impartial account of the pass was not a fully developed genre during the period. Historical narratives from the period often combined mythology with hearsay and other such accounts. I think it's not always accurate to look at the Bible as a historical account, because the authors did not think they were writing an impartial history.

I agree. They knew they were pushing legend.

[ShadowsCool]

I don't get what you don't understand, my post fully answers that question. You're presenting a false dichotomy: either the gospels are absolutely true or absolutely false.

I agree that either they all totally false or are totally true. I don't think they are anything other. If it's God's word transcribed by prophets then there can be no other way. God would not allow his prophets to get his word wrong. It's divine intervention, which I believe in.


I'm telling you this is a problematic assumption because what the apostles might of thought was the important "truth" of the gospels was not their historical accuracy or the objective detailing of events. Likewise, believing what one writes is not the same as demonstrating the veracity of what one writes.

I don't agree. if God inspired the word then It would have to have been true. That's the whole point of the Bible that Christians and Jews believe it is inspired. Not 40 different authors trying to keep some jewish people in line.


In fact, those morons wouldn't even know what I believed in. Why give them something to use against me or my family or community?

I don't think they were morons, they were hunted down like animals. Eventually they were going to get caught.



I suspect your use of martyrdom as a justification for faith is based on the fact that Jesus was killed by Pilate and there is some bizarre value in imitating this death.

You do understand that Jesus had to die for sins, right? I mean that's what the gospels are all about. He let Pilate judge him. There was no value in being a martyr following Christ except to be called a saint by the Early Church.

Isaiah 53.5: But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

[OrphanPip]

I agree that either they all totally false or are totally true. I don't think they are anything other. If it's God's word transcribed by prophets then there can be no other way. God would not allow his prophets to get his word wrong. It's divine intervention, which I believe in.



I don't agree. if God inspired the word then It would have to have been true. That's the whole point of the Bible that Christians and Jews believe it is inspired. Not 40 different authors trying to keep some jewish people in line.

Well there are serious problems with taking that approach to the gospels. For one, Matthew and Luke are most certainly built off of the earlier text of Mark, and they make specific, but different, additions to emphasize different themes. One has to reconcile the fact that four people tell slightly different versions of the same story, sometime with striking contradictions. I'm not going to say they made stuff up, but that the idea that they were infallibly recording accurate history is unlikely.

For example, Matthew's description of Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocents" is almost certainly fabricated. The Jewish historian Josephus doesn't mention it once, despite detailing every minor detail of Herod's cruelty in office, somehow he manages to miss the mass slaughter of newborns? And Matthew's story about the escape into Egypt puts a lot of strain on Luke's account of Jesus' early infancy. Luke's is certainly more believable.

There are also chronological discrepancies between John, Luke, Mark and Matthew. Such discrepancies are expected from people writing down stories years after they happened, eye witnesses are notoriously bad.

Also, as far as I'm aware it is a minority opinion amongst Christians in general that the Bible being divinely inspired means that it is literally true.

[cafolini]

Well there are serious problems with taking that approach to the gospels. For one, Matthew and Luke are most certainly built off of the earlier text of Mark, and they make specific, but different, additions to emphasize different themes. One has to reconcile the fact that four people tell slightly different versions of the same story, sometime with striking contradictions. I'm not going to say they made stuff up, but that the idea that they were infallibly recording accurate history is unlikely.

For example, Matthew's description of Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocents" is almost certainly fabricated. The Jewish historian Josephus doesn't mention it once, despite detailing every minor detail of Herod's cruelty in office, somehow he manages to miss the mass slaughter of newborns? And Matthew's story about the escape into Egypt puts a lot of strain on Luke's account of Jesus' early infancy. Luke's is certainly more believable.

There are also chronological discrepancies between John, Luke, Mark and Matthew. Such discrepancies are expected from people writing down stories years after they happened, eye witnesses are notoriously bad.

Also, as far as I'm aware it is a minority opinion amongst Christians in general that the Bible being divinely inspired means that it is literally true.

Why wouldn't you say they made stuff up? They had no history in those days. Where could they have picked up from. There is no thick evidence of sacred places untill they pounded on it all the way to the third century.

But at the same time you were saying that most people who believe in the Gospels do not believe it was actually true. I don't doubt that. How could they? Hypocricy is a human need burnt in the soul by the Romans.

[ShadowsCool]

There are also chronological discrepancies between John, Luke, Mark and Matthew. Such discrepancies are expected from people writing down stories years after they happened, eye witnesses are notoriously bad.

Also, as far as I'm aware it is a minority opinion amongst Christians in general that the Bible being divinely inspired means that it is literally true.

Modern scholars are rift with speculation about a whole lot of things. For instance, I read somewhere that there is some doubt as to Shakespeare authoring his plays, or if he even wrote any. I mean come on, I don't believe that, but it's still out there.

As for the Gospels, I think they held up pretty well in time, considering they are about 2,000 years old. Whether you accept them is purely up to you. But I wouldn't take some Jewish scholar, who only mentions Jesus in passing. The Jews had many reasons for not accepting Jesus as their messiah. As a matter of fact it was foretold in the old testament

[Charles Darnay]

As for the Gospels, I think they held up pretty well in time, considering they are about 2,000 years old. Whether you accept them is purely up to you.


It is not a matter of how long they have held up for. The original texts were pretty well preserved for the last 2,000 years - it is the original texts themselves that are called into question.



But I wouldn't take some Jewish scholar, who only mentions Jesus in passing. The Jews had many reasons for not accepting Jesus as their messiah. As a matter of fact it was foretold in the old testament

While yes, he was Jewish, Josephus was said to be a self-hating Jew. He expresses some very anti-Jewish sentiments in "The Wars of the Jews." Of course, we do run into a problem when analyzing Josephus because like all historians he had to write for the interest of the Emperor. So there is a question of how much is his feelings and how much he is expressing the will of his Emperor. But I don't think he should be disregarded because he was Jewish: his details are very thorough about events at that time about what was well known. Him referring Jesus just in passing could very well be indicative of the fact that Jesus (and his followers) were very unfavourable to the Empire at the time and had no place in Tiberius' history.

[Charles Darnay]

Modern scholars are rift with speculation about a whole lot of things. For instance, I read somewhere that there is some doubt as to Shakespeare authoring his plays, or if he even wrote any. I mean come on, I don't believe that, but it's still out there.

As for this nonsense about Shakespeare not being the author of his works - your point is well taken: modern scholars like to muck about with history for profit or other reasons. But the Shakespeare-Jesus comparison itself doesn't hold up. The key difference being that people don't dispute what is written when it comes to the Shakespeare cannon, just who was the real hand controlling the pen(quill). The Gospels are the opposite: no one doubts who wrote them, it is what is written that is doubted.

And of course that one claims to be truth while the other recognizes that it is fiction is a key factor....but I know this wasn't your point.

[ShadowsCool]

The Gospels are the opposite: no one doubts who wrote them, it is what is written that is doubted.



You bring up "these doubts" about the Gospels as if there are many and everyone agrees upon them. The Bible does claim to be the word of God, so what? You make it like these "doubts" are a cloud over the Bible. Well present your suspicions then!!!
What are they? Why is it you have them?

I am pretty well versed in the Bible, Old & New, and am pretty sure what is written is solid. The old & New Testament fits like a glove. They weave together perfectly. But you suggest that there was some mishandling of documents or outright forgery involved. Please present your arguments with specifics. I'm sure you have plenty.

[Charles Darnay]

You bring up "these doubts" about the Gospels as if there are many and everyone agrees upon them. The Bible does claim to be the word of God, so what? You make it like these "doubts" are a cloud over the Bible. Well present your suspicions then!!!
What are they? Why is it you have them?

I am pretty well versed in the Bible, Old & New, and am pretty sure what is written is solid. The old & New Testament fits like a glove. They weave together perfectly. But you suggest that there was some mishandling of documents or outright forgery involved. Please present your arguments with specifics. I'm sure you have plenty.

I never said there were forgeries within the documents, or mishandling. As for the Old and New Testament fitting together like a glove - I completely agree. There are some interesting topoi that cross over between the two texts: interesting from a literary perspective, a bit suspicious from a theological perspective.

When I said that the Gospels are doubted, I meant that what is written is doubted. Not by everyone, but there are those who doubt what is written....I believe they are often called Atheists or non-believers. I didn't think that I was making such an outlandish claim.

[ShadowsCool]

When I said that the Gospels are doubted, I meant that what is written is doubted. Not by everyone, but there are those who doubt what is written....I believe they are often called Atheists or non-believers. I didn't think that I was making such an outlandish claim.

Well that's quite different then. I think if the Bible were written, presented as fiction, no one would have a problem with it. I think we can both agree on that. But the fact that it is presented as the word of God, rubs many people the wrong way. I can understand that.

I have extensively cross referenced the Bible and find very few "holes" to point to. Maybe an odd phrase here, which can be interpreted a certain way due to Greek & Hebrew grammar or a number saying around 8 days, when it one account it may say 6. But not much else.

I'm also pretty well versed on 1st century Christianity up to the 4th century. I find little that concerns me regarding the original manuscripts themselves. Of course, anytime you have man involved with such a Book, things can happen. But I find few, if any.



Shadows