Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Who do you think Jesus was
Options
Comments
-
Here's a simpler synopsis for the not very bright. with pauses.
I believe that you're trolling and nobody's slipping me a "a quick buck" for this.In group evolutionary terms, strong belief systems like this are more likely to succeed that weak ones - the Christian ( and later Islamic) belief in the after life promotes a lot of self sacrifice which cant be explained by desire for love, fame, or fortune. Including the taking of one's own life. This is impossible to imagine for the atheist. To whom nothing is worth dying for and the only reason anybody could believe anything is to make a quick buck [...]
Stay on topic, try to avoid insulting most of your readers, and you might be able to avoid the reality of further cards and the unreality of a permanent afterlife outside of A+A.0 -
It was in fairly remedial English.
Here's a simpler synopsis for the not very bright. with pauses.
Because. An. Atheist. Cant. Imagine. People. Actually. Believing. In. A. Higher. Power. They. Assign. Cynicism. Or. Desire. For. Money.To. Believers.
It doesn't matter what type of language you use, your post was still nonsense.0 -
No I don't think so, but I do believe that he believed that what he claimed was happening to him was happening to him. That's an important distinction.
So what do you believe is the source of the claims he gave, about the golden tablets, the words on the golden tablets, the Book of Morman.
Where did that information come from? Are you suggesting that he made it all up but was unaware that he was making it all?
And why if Smith genuinely believed that there were words on these tablets did he not let anyone else see them and refused to let anyone assess his process for reading them, going to great lengths to prevent anyone from confirming this?0 -
What most of the cynical atheists miss, if of course, the strength of a belief in the after life. If people believed that they were certainly willing to die for it - as Paul was, and probably most of the apostles too.
Er, that is anything but remedial English. Proof read your posts please, at the moment I've no idea what you are trying to say here.0 -
This is impossible to imagine for the atheist. To whom nothing is worth dying for and the only reason anybody could believe anything is to make a quick buck, because if the atheist were involved in a large organisation, it would be to make a quick buck, nothing else would make sense.
Jog on and do some research before making sweeping generalizations.0 -
Advertisement
-
So what do you believe is the source of the claims he gave, about the golden tablets, the words on the golden tablets, the Book of Morman.
I think he probably was misguided in some way about what he perceived, much as you think he is. I'm open to taking a look at it, as my analysis is limited.Where did that information come from? Are you suggesting that he made it all up but was unaware that he was making it all?
Perhaps that or perhaps he thought it a revelation.And why if Smith genuinely believed that there were words on these tablets did he not let anyone else see them and refused to let anyone assess his process for reading them, going to great lengths to prevent anyone from confirming this?
I've explained any number of beliefs that could make someone do this, from God only speaks to his chosen prophets to if you see you wouldn't have faith? This isn't really evidence that Joseph Smith didn't believe that he was the first prophet of the LDS church.
I've no interest in defending Mormonism, as you well know, but I do believe that Smith at the very least thought that he was telling the truth.0 -
I think he probably was misguided in some way about what he perceived, much as you think he is.
But the actual information, the words, must have come from some where. If he didn't make them up, and he wasn't actually translating then under the guidance of God, where did they come from?
If it wasn't an actual revelation then the things he claims to have seen must have been imagined.Perhaps that or perhaps he thought it a revelation.I've explained any number of beliefs that could make someone do this, from God only speaks to his chosen prophets to if you see you wouldn't have faith? This isn't really evidence that Joseph Smith didn't believe that he was the first prophet of the LDS church.
What he believed in relation to being a prophet is irrelevant. What matters is if he made up the Book or Mormon. If he made it up with good intentions because he believed he was a prophet then this is no different to the Apostles making up the sightings of a resurrected Jesus with good intentions because they believed Jesus was resurrected.
Your claim is that the apostles would not have made up the sightings of Jesus because they would have known they were lies and wouldn't have died for a lie. This, as we've said, is naive based on the behavior of others in cults and fringe religious groups.0 -
The argument is that people would not die for a belief that they made up and knew full well was false.
This argument hinges on two factors, one, whether or not the apostles had to have known that their beliefs were false. There is no evidence or reason to suggest this that I have seen so far and two, whether or not the apostles were martyred for their beliefs. I would like to know, Jakkass what your position on the first one is.
In the meantime, let's deal with the argument of the apostles dying for a lie. The question is, did they actually die for their beliefs?
I suppose the first thing to do is get an idea of who it is we mean when we say apostles. This is the list I propose using:- Peter (Simon Peter)
- Andrew
- James, son of Zebedee
- John
- Philip
- Bartholomew/Nathanael, son of Talemai
- Matthew
- Thomas
- James (James the Less, James the Just), son of Alphaeus
- Thaddeus/Lebbaeus/Jude
- Simon the Zealot/Cananean (Simeon of Jerusalem)
- Judas Iscariot (replaced by Matthias)
Peter
Peter according to tradition was crucified in Rome. He was also crucified upside-down so as not to die in the same manner of Jesus. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that prisoners were rarely, if ever, accorded the privelege of choosing their method of execution, let's examine the textual evidence. The bulk of the traditional account of the martyrdom of St. Peter comes from the apocryphal Acts of Peter, an account dismissed as unreliable by historian Eusebius. Other than that we have early Christian scholars such as Origen and Tertullian describing the method of Peter's death but not the origins. These accounts, however, are a century after the fact and not entirely reliable.
Andrew
According to tradition, Andrew was crucified on a saltire (an x-shaped cross) so as not to die in the same manner as Jesus. However, the source for this tradition is the Acts of Andrew. However, even early Biblical scholars such as Eusebius considered the Acts of Andrew to be unreliable. Modern Biblical scholars such as Francis Dvornik have also questioned the authenticity of Acts of Andrew. We, therefore, don't have any reliable information as to how Andrew died and cannot suggest that he was a martyr.
James, son of Zebedee
James is one of the few apostles who is listed as being killed in the Bible. According to Acts, Herod killed James with a sword. There is nothing in Acts to suggest that this death is anything other than a murder. Clement of Alexandria wrote that James was tried and executed as a martyr but since he was born 106 years after James' death, this account is unreliable.
John
John, even according to Catholic tradition, is not considered to be a martyr. He is reported to have died in 100CE of old age.
Philip
Like Andrew, the only suggestion of the martyrdom of Philip is in a later work called the Acts of Philip. However, like John, Catholic tradition holds that Philip was not martyred (or at least that his fate was unknown). The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia describes the Acts of Philip as a "tissue of fables".
Bartholomew
One of the more interesting apostle stories out there. There are many different stories surrounding Bartholomew's fate. One account suggests that he was crucified in Armenia, while another suggests he was beheaded in India. No writings of Bartholomew's fate exist prior to Eusebius and thus there is no reliable account of Bartholomew's death.
Matthew
The accounts of Matthew's fate are even more varied and unreliable than Bartholomew's. Most Christian scholars agree that the fate of Matthew is unknown. The Christian History Institute concludes that "we have nothing but legend about Matthew's death while Catholic Online states that "nothing definite is known about his later life". Some sources in fact suggest that Matthew died a natural death.
Thomas
Some accounts including the apocryphal Acts of Thomas describe Thomas as having preached in India where he was stabbed to death with a spear. However, Eusebius dismisses the Acts of Thomas as unreliable. Furthermore, modern Catholic consensus holds that "it is difficult to discover any adequate support" to support the death of Thomas in India.
James the Less
The question to answer here is which James are we talking about. James is mentioned differently in different texts. James is described by some sources as James, brother of Jesus a tradition not held by Eastern Orthodox churches. Some accounts place his death in Egypt as a result of crucifixion while Josephus mentions that James was stoned by Pharisees. There are numerous conflicting stories with no evidence to tip the balance in favour of any of them.
Thaddeus
Again it is difficult to know to what real person any of the stories refer. This apostle is named differently in Luke's Gospel than he is in Matthew's. Some accounts report that he was crucified in Armenia with Simon while others describe him being clubbed to death and others still say that he died of natural causes. However, none of these accounts have any corroborating textual evidence to support them and hence we know nothing of the fate of Thaddeus.
Simon the Zealot
No detail of the many conflicting reports of Simon's death seem to agree. His place of death has been reported as Persia, Edessa, Samria, Iberia, Colchis or even Britain. Some reports describe him being crucified while others say he was sawn in half. The source of this uncertainty is again an identity issue with Simon the Zealot being identified with other early Christian figures including Simeon of Jerusalem.
Judas Iscariot
It's nice to finish on an easy one. The story of Judas is well known and not attributable to martyrdom.
So as far as the apostles go, the only apostle that could even charitably be described as a martyr is Peter. The rest of the apostles were not deemed important enough to merit anything other than passing mentions in history. Even so, if we accept that Peter was crucified (and I'm not suggesting that we do) we only have descriptions of Peter's death. There are a multitude of questions remaining. In particular one question stands out: Did the authorities offer Peter a chance to recant? If Peter, or any of the other apostles for that matter died in circumstances where recanting would have saved them then that would speak to martyrdom but we have no evidence of any such incident.
In conclusion, we don't know how any of the apostles died, and as such cannot say that they died for their beliefs. Without martyrdom, we don't know how the apostles viewed their beliefs, false or otherwise.
P.S. I didn't have time to link to all the primary sources as I went along but if anyone wants I'll post a short bibliography.0 -
This argument hinges on two factors, one, whether or not the apostles had to have known that their beliefs were false. There is no evidence or reason to suggest this that I have seen so far and two, whether or not the apostles were martyred for their beliefs. I would like to know, Jakkass what your position on the first one is.
In the meantime, let's deal with the argument of the apostles dying for a lie. The question is, did they actually die for their beliefs?
I suppose the first thing to do is get an idea of who it is we mean when we say apostles. This is the list I propose using:- Peter (Simon Peter)
- Andrew
- James, son of Zebedee
- John
- Philip
- Bartholomew/Nathanael, son of Talemai
- Matthew
- Thomas
- James (James the Less, James the Just), son of Alphaeus
- Thaddeus/Lebbaeus/Jude
- Simon the Zealot/Cananean (Simeon of Jerusalem)
- Judas Iscariot (replaced by Matthias)
Peter
Peter according to tradition was crucified in Rome. He was also crucified upside-down so as not to die in the same manner of Jesus. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that prisoners were rarely, if ever, accorded the privelege of choosing their method of execution, let's examine the textual evidence. The bulk of the traditional account of the martyrdom of St. Peter comes from the apocryphal Acts of Peter, an account dismissed as unreliable by historian Eusebius. Other than that we have early Christian scholars such as Origen and Tertullian describing the method of Peter's death but not the origins. These accounts, however, are a century after the fact and not entirely reliable.
Andrew
According to tradition, Andrew was crucified on a saltire (an x-shaped cross) so as not to die in the same manner as Jesus. However, the source for this tradition is the Acts of Andrew. However, even early Biblical scholars such as Eusebius considered the Acts of Andrew to be unreliable. Modern Biblical scholars such as Francis Dvornik have also questioned the authenticity of Acts of Andrew. We, therefore, don't have any reliable information as to how Andrew died and cannot suggest that he was a martyr.
James, son of Zebedee
James is one of the few apostles who is listed as being killed in the Bible. According to Acts, Herod killed James with a sword. There is nothing in Acts to suggest that this death is anything other than a murder. Clement of Alexandria wrote that James was tried and executed as a martyr but since he was born 106 years after James' death, this account is unreliable.
John
John, even according to Catholic tradition, is not considered to be a martyr. He is reported to have died in 100CE of old age.
Philip
Like Andrew, the only suggestion of the martyrdom of Philip is in a later work called the Acts of Philip. However, like John, Catholic tradition holds that Philip was not martyred (or at least that his fate was unknown). The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia describes the Acts of Philip as a "tissue of fables".
Bartholomew
One of the more interesting apostle stories out there. There are many different stories surrounding Bartholomew's fate. One account suggests that he was crucified in Armenia, while another suggests he was beheaded in India. No writings of Bartholomew's fate exist prior to Eusebius and thus there is no reliable account of Bartholomew's death.
Matthew
The accounts of Matthew's fate are even more varied and unreliable than Bartholomew's. Most Christian scholars agree that the fate of Matthew is unknown. The Christian History Institute concludes that "we have nothing but legend about Matthew's death while Catholic Online states that "nothing definite is known about his later life". Some sources in fact suggest that Matthew died a natural death.
Thomas
Some accounts including the apocryphal Acts of Thomas describe Thomas as having preached in India where he was stabbed to death with a spear. However, Eusebius dismisses the Acts of Thomas as unreliable. Furthermore, modern Catholic consensus holds that "it is difficult to discover any adequate support" to support the death of Thomas in India.
James the Less
The question to answer here is which James are we talking about. James is mentioned differently in different texts. James is described by some sources as James, brother of Jesus a tradition not held by Eastern Orthodox churches. Some accounts place his death in Egypt as a result of crucifixion while Josephus mentions that James was stoned by Pharisees. There are numerous conflicting stories with no evidence to tip the balance in favour of any of them.
Thaddeus
Again it is difficult to know to what real person any of the stories refer. This apostle is named differently in Luke's Gospel than he is in Matthew's. Some accounts report that he was crucified in Armenia with Simon while others describe him being clubbed to death and others still say that he died of natural causes. However, none of these accounts have any corroborating textual evidence to support them and hence we know nothing of the fate of Thaddeus.
Simon the Zealot
No detail of the many conflicting reports of Simon's death seem to agree. His place of death has been reported as Persia, Edessa, Samria, Iberia, Colchis or even Britain. Some reports describe him being crucified while others say he was sawn in half. The source of this uncertainty is again an identity issue with Simon the Zealot being identified with other early Christian figures including Simeon of Jerusalem.
Judas Iscariot
It's nice to finish on an easy one. The story of Judas is well known and not attributable to martyrdom.
So as far as the apostles go, the only apostle that could even charitably be described as a martyr is Peter. The rest of the apostles were not deemed important enough to merit anything other than passing mentions in history. Even so, if we accept that Peter was crucified (and I'm not suggesting that we do) we only have descriptions of Peter's death. There are a multitude of questions remaining. In particular one question stands out: Did the authorities offer Peter a chance to recant? If Peter, or any of the other apostles for that matter died in circumstances where recanting would have saved them then that would speak to martyrdom but we have no evidence of any such incident.
In conclusion, we don't know how any of the apostles died, and as such cannot say that they died for their beliefs. Without martyrdom, we don't know how the apostles viewed their beliefs, false or otherwise.
P.S. I didn't have time to link to all the primary sources as I went along but if anyone wants I'll post a short bibliography.
Very interesting post. I guess I was being some what naive myself, taking the Christian accounts as established facts in the first place. If your post is accurate (which I'm sure it is) we have very little evidence that the thing we are asked to explain even happened.
I really can't see how anyone is a Christian to be honest. There is no more historical evidence for the truth of Christianity than any other religion.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Gibbon has this to say on the character of Eusebius, and the latter's famous declaration of bias:The bulk of the traditional account of the martyrdom of St. Peter comes from the apocryphal Acts of Peter, an account dismissed as unreliable by historian Eusebius.
Gibbon was referring to Eusebius' ''Ecclesiastical History'', book 8, chapter 2, in which Eusebius introduces his discussion of the Great Persecution under Diocletian with the following:Edward Gibbon wrote:The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries.Eusebius wrote:Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. [...] We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.0 -
Gibbon has this to say on the character of Eusebius, and the latter's famous declaration of bias:Gibbon was referring to Eusebius' ''Ecclesiastical History'', book 8, chapter 2, in which Eusebius introduces his discussion of the Great Persecution under Diocletian with the following:
Thanks, for that Robin, I hadn't seen that before.
I would have thought, though, that a writer with an acknowledged bias towards things which "vindicate the Divine Judgment" would have been eager to support the Acts of Peter as reliable because of the credence it lends to the martyrdom of Peter as prophesied in the Bible. The fact that a writer who wants to talk up the christian story dismisses an account such as Acts of Peter speaks volumes.
In any case, we don't need Eusebius to discount Acts of Peter as reliable. The scholarly consensus is that Acts of Peter was written sometime in the second half of the second century, no later than 200CE by a resident of Asia Minor who does not know much about Rome.0 -
But there's a possibility that they didn't believe what they were saying, but for various reasons died before they retracted their beliefs, or that they didn't want to retract their beliefs for various reasons.That's the problem when we are arguing specifically as to whether or not the Apostles could have died for a concocted lie that they themselves didn't believe in. The analogy doesn't hold if you can't be certain that they died knowing full well that it was a lie.
And the only reason you want to exclude these possibility is because they aren't convenient to your position.
You're using circular logic here. You're basically arguing that these are not likely to be examples of people dying for fictional beliefs because such a thing is unlikely.
So people would only renounce their beliefs under threat of death? L Ron wouldn't have thought that his wife being arrested and himself being convicted in several countries was enough to admit to making it all up?Arrest != death. It isn't even addressing the question that we're trying to resolve.
But then they're still dying for a lie they know is a lie, which you say isn't possible.This also precludes the possibility that yes they did make it up but they believed that it was from a higher power. That's not the same as dying for something that is a clearly concocted lie that they themselves know to the false.
Unless of course you'd like to move the goalposts some more.
And more circular reasoning here. Joseph Smith can't be an example of someone dying for a lie, because it is unlikely he died for a lie..Joseph Smith believed that the Book of Mormon was true. You know full well I am not even making reference to people who died for what they believed to be true. Joseph Smith is a much better example than L. Ron Hubbard actually. Although it can be argued that L. Ron Hubbard didn't believe in his lie, he didn't have to suffer all that much for it. It cannot be argued that Joseph Smith didn't believe in his lie, and yes he lost everything including his life for it.
I have yet to see how this demonstrates that it isn't unlikely that people can die for a clearly concocted lie that they themselves knew was false.
What are you basing this insistence that he did believe on exactly? Especially in deference to the obivious fact he was making it up.
No you haven't. The New Testament is no more reliable about the lives of the apostles than the writings of L Ron Hubbard are on his life.I've made a pretty good case as to why the New Testament texts can be trusted in respect to the Apostles. If you have a reason to contest that please present it.
Especially in leiu of the post Oldwinsr made.
Two things:Putting it forward as a possibility != making a positive claim that it is a possibility. We have no evidence to suggest that the Christian community had a lot of material wealth. We do have sources which suggest that Christians often had very little and indeed shared a lot of their resources. If Christians had extortionate wealth I'm fairly sure that it would have been documented somewhere. We can only determine what is actually reasonable based on what evidence we have rather than pulling it from nowhere.
1) the resurrection is a possible explanation, however I clearly am not making it as a positive claim.
2) I've been talking about the Apostles you keep shifting to the entire Christian community. Again the average scientologist isn't particularly rich. L Ron Hubbard had a private navy.
So the possibility exists that the apostles and other church leaders were quite wealthy. The reason this is likely is because it happens in cults all over the world. And I'd imagine it would be a lot easier to hide this wealth before searchable tax returns.
Would you like to see the correspondence L Ron sent around to his churches which document the struggles he had setting up his church?His books seem to be books demonstrating and explaning the teachings of Scientology. Paul's letters don't do this solely. They are pastoral letters accounting in a very raw manner in the ups and downs of Christian communities. They are hardly promotional material and they give us a real insight into the real difficulties and struggles that Paul had in building Christian communities. I don't see any reason to publish these letters apart from to give the wider Christian church something to learn from and something to build Christian character from.
Although I haven't read L. Ron Hubbard's books and I don't claim to be an expert on Scientology. This probably is the reason why I tend to focus on what Christians believe rather than arguing about other forms of thinking. 1) There isn't an adequate opportunity for Scientologists to defend themselves, and 2) I haven't read those books. Sometimes it is for only 1 of those 2 reasons. For example I have familiarity with some Qur'anic texts but I would prefer to discuss this with a Muslim present.
Apparently you know much more about Dianetics and other texts of Scientology than I do. I would be curious in looking into it at some time, but I don't see the point of discussing Scientology in this context admittedly.
That's nonsense Jakkass there's not a chance you think the writings of L Ron Hubbard are valid or reliable. If you honestly think they might be, I've a bridge to sell you.I don't discount what I'm not familiar with. I want to look into things I'm not familiar with.
So what about it shows the martyrdoms of the apostles were accurate and free of embellishment (ie what I asked for). Again you're moving the goalposts.This account is a historical account by someone who wasn't a Christian. Josephus was a Pharasaic Jew.
This account describes the mere fact that Christians were martyred, and that the Roman and Jewish societies were hostile towards Christianity. That's all I need to do to demonstrate to you that Christians didn't live in relative safety and that many Christians risked their lives.
Please, show me were I did this.You doubted this a few posts ago.
Which texts? I've asked you for these but you've refused to give them because you think the bible was reliable enough.You also suggested that Peter, Paul and others were effectively 1st century equivalents of Joel Osteen or Benny Hinn despite the fact that what texts we do have suggest otherwise. If you're claiming that is a possibility there must be good reason to claim this?
And I've already stated my reason for suggesting it as a possibility: it's what cults do.
Yes I have been, that's what I've been arguing against.I hope you've been following but I've been arguing about people more than likely not being willing to risk their very lives for a lie that they themselves concocted and knew to be false. I'm not arguing that people cannot be deluded.
But you've since actually admitted to some of the other possibilities I've suggested, but you've fobbed off as unlikely.
For example you've suggested it's possible that they made up claims because they thought it was what their god wanted them to do.1. The Apostles genuinely believed in the moral message of an ordinary preacher (or even just the message itself) and created stories of the miracles to help spread the message more convincingly.0 -
King Mob: You're making the same mistake as Wicknight was. Just because someone may have made something up, 1) doesn't mean that they don't believe that they didn't, 2) doesn't mean that they believe what they made up was a lie. One can conjure up fiction, but one can still believe in it. It is whether or not Joseph Smith conjured up this lie and believed it was false that is key. I don't see any reason to suggest that he didn't believe in it.
Besides, dare I say that this argument should be more about the Resurrection and the Apostles than Joseph Smith? :pac: The more analogies we invoke the more difficult this argument is going to be no?0 -
King Mob: You're making the same mistake as Wicknight was. Just because someone may have made something up, 1) doesn't mean that they don't believe that they didn't, 2) doesn't mean that they believe what they made up was a lie. One can conjure up fiction, but one can still believe in it. It is whether or not Joseph Smith conjured up this lie and believed it was false that is key. I don't see any reason to suggest that he didn't believe in it.
Besides, dare I say that this argument should be more about the Resurrection and the Apostles than Joseph Smith? :pac: The more analogies we invoke the more difficult this argument is going to be no?
And doesn't address the majority of my points and barely addresses the ones you think it does.
At this stage you've just been listing off possibilities of what they could be believing, but not actually showing how one is more likely than the other. You're using circular logic based on your own assumption that the scenario we are arguing for is unlikely.
The reason I'm using Joseph Smith as an example is because he clearly made up his claims, and by all indications knew he was doing so. (You've yet to substantiate your insistence that he truly, beyond your circular logic.)
The reason I'm using L. Ron Hubbard is because he also made up his claims and he is a very good example of why the cult's writings cannot be taken as trustworthy.
The reason I'm using both is because they are essentially no different from Christianity, aside for the fact you believe one.
And remember I'm only arguing one part of this based on an assumption for argument's sake. Oldwinsr has pretty much falsified this assumption: that the apostles died as you claim.0 -
That's not an analogy -- that's an instance of somebody making something up and then approximately "dying for it" (though it would probably be fairer to say that Smith died because of his beliefs). Since all the apostles are dead and their motives and state of their beliefs at the time of their deaths is unknown, all we can do is speculate.The more analogies we invoke the more difficult this argument is going to be no?
The NT certainly does not say that they were killed in the service of their beliefs, so it's a distinctly faulty assumption on your part to claim (or pretend to claim!) that they were.
All we do know for sure is that they are dead.0 -
King Mob: You're making the same mistake as Wicknight was. Just because someone may have made something up, 1) doesn't mean that they don't believe that they didn't, 2) doesn't mean that they believe what they made up was a lie. One can conjure up fiction, but one can still believe in it. It is whether or not Joseph Smith conjured up this lie and believed it was false that is key. I don't see any reason to suggest that he didn't believe in it.
So you're in effect saying that the apostles may have been aware that the story of Jesus' resurrection was a lie but believed in it anyway?
I'm sorry wasn't the whole point of this is that somehow it's (apostles supposed martyrdom) all evidence for the resurrection (and other parts of the Jesus story).
So now you seem to be saying that while people don't die for a lie, they somehow make themselves believe it and die for it anyway. What you now appear to be arguing is that people dying for some cause is in no way evidence for the underlying truth claims of that cause. Is this correct?0 -
So you're in effect saying that the apostles may have been aware that the story of Jesus' resurrection was a lie but believed in it anyway?
No. I'm saying it could have been fiction, but that they believed it to be truth.I'm sorry wasn't the whole point of this is that somehow it's (apostles supposed martyrdom) all evidence for the resurrection (and other parts of the Jesus story).
I haven't mentioned this although I have in other threads. All I have been trying to do this time is to rule out the possibility that they died for what they knew full well was fiction.So now you seem to be saying that while people don't die for a lie, they somehow make themselves believe it and die for it anyway. What you now appear to be arguing is that people dying for some cause is in no way evidence for the underlying truth claims of that cause. Is this correct?
I never claimed it was evidence for the truth claims. All I am doing is working to rule out one possibility. Perhaps I will move on to others once we have satisfies.0 -
-
I never claimed it was evidence for the truth claims. All I am doing is working to rule out one possibility. Perhaps I will move on to others once we have satisfies.
But you haven't been able to rule it out.
Despite numerous scenarios we've posited for this exact criteria, many of which had examples to back them up, all you've done so far is make an assertion that it is unlikely (not impossible) which you're yet to support with anything at all.0 -
Advertisement
-
But you haven't been able to rule it out.
Despite numerous scenarios we've posited for this exact criteria, many of which had examples to back them up, all you've done so far is make an assertion that it is unlikely (not impossible) which you're yet to support with anything at all.
There has been nothing evident to suggest that in the case of any example you've provided that would fit the correct criteria that it is reasonable or likely that people would die for a lie (that they didn't themselves believe in) that they themselves constructed in a context where there is clear and apparent risk to their lives as in the Apostle's case.
I suspect because if such cases do exist they are extremely rare. I'd even go as far as positing that they actually don't happen.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise that is.0 -
There has been nothing evident to suggest that in the case of any example you've provided that would fit the correct criteria that it is reasonable or likely that people would die for a lie (that they didn't themselves believe in) that they themselves constructed in a context where there is clear and apparent risk to their lives as in the Apostle's case.
I suspect because if such cases do exist they are extremely rare. I'd even go as far as positing that they actually don't happen.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise that is.
But Jakkass, we've been detailing exactly why and how these examples are relevant and applicable.
But all you've done is offer a very poorly veiled argument from incredulity and are now moving the goalposts to such a position where we can't answer it.
We've shown you a perfect example of a cult leader who clearly made up his beliefs, suffered persecution like you think the apostles did and died for for those beliefs.
Your response: "He truly believed, because I say so."0 -
But Jakkass, we've been detailing exactly why and how these examples are relevant and applicable.
But all you've done is offer a very poorly veiled argument from incredulity and are now moving the goalposts to such a position where we can't answer it.
We've shown you a perfect example of a cult leader who clearly made up his beliefs, suffered persecution like you think the apostles did and died for for those beliefs.
Your response: "He truly believed, because I say so."
Who? Joseph Smith? He was lynched - doesn't exactly allow for a lot of time to repent and say he was lying, and even if he did, would anyone have listened?0 -
There has been nothing evident to suggest that in the case of any example you've provided that would fit the correct criteria that it is reasonable or likely that people would die for a lie (that they didn't themselves believe in) that they themselves constructed in a context where there is clear and apparent risk to their lives as in the Apostle's case.
You have not made that case.
You have been shown examples where people died for something they made up, and you have proposed that just because they made it up doesn't mean that they were lying, they could have believed what they themselves made up.
They could have. But equally they could have been lying. The only argument you seem to have that they weren't is that you don't seem to think this happens.
And the latter seems to make much more sense given the lengths someone like Smith went to ensure others did not test or assess what he was claiming, something that seems odd if he himself believed what he was doing.
Simply supposing they could have been lying does not demonstrate they were, particularly when the evidence is consistent with them lying rather than being severely deluded.
Ultimately though it is some what irrelevant to the issue of the resurrection. I'm as happy with the idea of the Apostles making up the resurrection and then coming to believe it as I am with them making it up and knowing it was a lie until they died. Both are consistent with cult behavior, and neither require a supernatural explanation. I suspect you think that if you rule out that they knew it was a lie you believe this strengthens the case for the resurrection. This seems foolish when you have argued that a man can believe he is reading an entire book from God and not know he is making it up.0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »Who? Joseph Smith? He was lynched - doesn't exactly allow for a lot of time to repent and say he was lying, and even if he did, would anyone have listened?
Right so here's the nub of it, it's now being argued that not only did these men have to die for their cause, they also had to have some explicit step in there that they had an opportunity to recant, repent, admit it was all made up and walk away. But they refused and accepted death instead?
There's very little evidence that these men were even killed for their cause, let alone of such an explicit step documented in their trials/persecutions.
At some stage Smith must have been aware of the threat against him and the danger he was in, and yet chose to continue. We all accept that Smith himself knew his story about gold tablets was fiction, he still put himself in harms way for it - and we can all understand what kinds of reasons he might have had to making the reward justify these risks.
Smith was much more recent, evidence and documentation about him is better and more reliable. Arguing that the apostles were different and *must* have had an explicit chance to recant and walk away free because there is no evidence to support it, strikes me as slightly bizarre.0 -
Which is kinda my point.The Mad Hatter wrote: »Who? Joseph Smith? He was lynched - doesn't exactly allow for a lot of time to repent and say he was lying, and even if he did, would anyone have listened?
Who's to say this didn't happen to the apostles?0 -
Which is kinda my point.
Who's to say this didn't happen to the apostles?
And it's not the point that Jakkass is trying to make. His question is, and has been for pages: Why would people willingly go to their deaths for something they knew was a lie?
The responses have included people who deliberately lied and then unwillingly went to their deaths (such as Joseph Smith) and people who (perhaps) unwittingly lied and willingly went to their death (such as Jim Jones).
There have also been numerous other responses which have dealt with the veracity of the accounts, the manner of the deaths of the apostles, etc., which are all perfectly fair arguments once we get past this point.
In the larger scale, I don't think Jakkass has a case; the only reason I'm defending him is that no-one seems to be arguing against what he's actually saying.0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »In the larger scale, I don't think Jakkass has a case; the only reason I'm defending him is that no-one seems to be arguing against what he's actually saying.
That is only because he simply refuses to accept the examples. It is difficult to come up with examples of what Jakkass is asking for if when we do he simply refuses to accept them as such. It was Jakkass who suggested that Jim Jones wasn't lying, I don't think anyone here believes that.
As for Smith. I agree he wasn't happy about being shot (he defended himself and attempted to get away). He did how ever voluntarily submit himself to trail (after initially considering running away), a trail that if found guilty of he faced a capital sentence.
Using Jakkass' logic why do that if he was lying? What did he have to gain?0 -
That is only because he simply refuses to accept the examples. It is difficult to come up with examples of what Jakkass is asking for if when we do he simply refuses to accept them as such. It was Jakkass who suggested that Jim Jones wasn't lying, I don't think anyone here believes that.
?
No I didn't. Please read my posts.
I suggested that Jim Jones may have believed that he himself was telling the truth.0 -
Advertisement
-
I suggested that Jim Jones may have believed that he himself was telling the truth.
Er, ok
It was Jakkass who suggested that Jim Jones was making it up, actively deceiving people, asking people to help him deceive people, while all the time believing he was telling the truth, I don't think anyone here believes that.
Better?0
Advertisement