Who do you think Jesus was

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob: There's not much point in even attempting if people cannot even understand what at the most rudimentary level I'm arguing.

I'm sorry Jakkass that explanation simply is beneath you and doesn't excuse the fact you ignored my point and failed to explain why.
Seriously, I've lost a deal of respect for you because you've engaged in such tactics.

Jakkass wrote: »

Looking to the second: This is only if one doesn't agree that there is actually historical basis for the martyrdom of the Apostles. What reasoning would you have to suggest that we don't?

In terms of ecclesiastical history there is much that would tell us about how many of the Apostles died. Indeed some non-ecclesiastical history too.

And there's historical sources about how L. Ron Hubbard died, which confirm the Church of Scientology's belief that he simply went off to do research on the non-physical plane, right?

So do the non-ecclesiastical sources confirm all the details of the martyrdoms the bible has?
What about their martyrdoms exclude the possibility that they have been embellished or spun?

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

I'm sorry Jakkass that explanation simply is beneath you and doesn't excuse the fact you ignored my point and failed to explain why.
Seriously, I've lost a deal of respect for you because you've engaged in such tactics.

I've addressed your second point so I don't see what your issue is? It is still a little absurd that some on the thread don't see that I'm not claiming that martyrdom = truth. But rather that people who patently disbelieve in something do not generally go out into a severely hostile world and risk their lives for something false. There's no benefit in it. Even the Branch Davidians couldn't really say that they lived in a hostile society, they had the liberty to practice freely in a secular State as the USA is.

You had respect for me? wow RLY? :pac:

But really, sorry for only looking at it in part first.

King Mob wrote: »

And there's historical sources about how L. Ron Hubbard died, which confirm the Church of Scientology's belief that he simply went off to do research on the non-physical plane, right?

I would be very surprised if the Church of Scientology didn't have at least some point of reference to history whether legitimate or illegitimate.

King Mob wrote: »

So do the non-ecclesiastical sources confirm all the details of the martyrdoms the bible has?
What about their martyrdoms exclude the possibility that they have been embellished or spun?

No, nor does the Bible cover all the martyrdoms of the Apostles mentioned externally. We don't even need the Bible to look into how hostile the society was to Christians. We don't need the Bible to tell us that there were many Christian martyrs either.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

I would be very surprised if the Church of Scientology didn't have at least some point of reference to history whether legitimate or illegitimate.

So you understand how a real event can be spun by believers and cult leaders to support their cult beliefs.

Jakkass wrote: »

No, nor does the Bible cover all the martyrdoms of the Apostles mentioned externally.

So then do you specifically exclude the possibility that the deaths of the apostles weren't spun after the fact to suit the cult's needs?

Jakkass wrote: »

We don't even need the Bible to look into how hostile the society was to Christians. We don't need the Bible to tell us that there were many Christian martyrs either.

That's great and all, but we've shown you plenty of examples of people expressing beliefs you think are false in similar conditions.
You're referring to the Apostles specifically.
I'm pretty sure the government were out to get Jim Jones, David Koresh and
L. Ron Hubbard and yet these fellas went out despite the dangers to themselves and preached their beliefs.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

So you understand how a real event can be spun by believers and cult leaders to support their cult beliefs.

Definitely. I just believe that there is good historical reason to believe in the fact that Christians were martyred for their faith, and that Roman society was hostile towards Christians. That's all I need to assume that there was a huge risk in what the Apostles did for rather little gain. I don't have to re-write history in order to believe that Roman society was hostile towards early Christians because it's factually the case.

We're not even at the point to say that the Gospel isn't a load of twaddle because it may be out of delusion.

I think that we have a long way to go before anyone could say that the Apostles genuinely just contrived Christianity while knowing very clearly that it was a lie. Delusion seems more likely than this possibility.


So then do you specifically exclude the possibility that the deaths of the apostles weren't spun after the fact to suit the cult's needs?

King Mob wrote: »

That's great and all, but we've shown you plenty of examples of people expressing beliefs you think are false in similar conditions.
You're referring to the Apostles specifically.
I'm pretty sure the government were out to get Jim Jones, David Koresh and
L. Ron Hubbard and yet these fellas went out despite the dangers to themselves and preached their beliefs.

Jim Jones and David Koresh are not valid comparisons as I've mentioned pretty clearly quite a few times now. L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology cannot be adequately compared. It seems that you're underestimating the actual environment in the Roman Empire at that time. Unless you can present logic as to why this is the case. Then I'm all eyes :pac:

Postit

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well, he was a picker, a grinner, a lover and a sinner and he played music in the sun. He was a joker, a smoker, a mid-night toker and got his lovin' on the run. Some people even call him the space cowboy yeah.

I thought some people called Jesus, Maurice?

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

Definitely. I just believe that there is good historical reason to believe in the fact that Christians were martyred for their faith, and that Roman society was hostile towards Christians. That's all I need to assume that there was a huge risk in what the Apostles did for rather little gain. I don't have to re-write history in order to believe that Roman society was hostile towards early Christians because it's factually the case.

We're not even at the point to say that the Gospel isn't a load of twaddle because it may be out of delusion.

I think that we have a long way to go before anyone could say that the Apostles genuinely just contrived Christianity while knowing very clearly that it was a lie. Delusion seems more likely than this possibility.

Again you're assuming that there isn't anything to gain. There's plenty of ways for a cult like that to make profit, and all you have to say otherwise, is that it's not mentioned in the bible.

Jakkass wrote: »

So then do you specifically exclude the possibility that the deaths of the apostles weren't spun after the fact to suit the cult's needs?

I don't, but lacking any evidence to the contrary and basic observation of how social groups work, it's a high probability. About as equal to the probability of the apostles being deluded or duped, but far far far more probable than magic happening.

Jakkass wrote: »

Jim Jones and David Koresh are not valid comparisons as I've mentioned pretty clearly quite a few times now. L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology cannot be adequately compared. It seems that you're underestimating the actual environment in the Roman Empire at that time. Unless you can present logic as to why this is the case. Then I'm all eyes :pac:

It is a fair comparison as all those leaders told their followers that they were being targeted by the governments at the time and all of them fell afoul of the law on many occasions, especially Koresh.
Different scale, but same bull**** really.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

Again you're assuming that there isn't anything to gain. There's plenty of ways for a cult like that to make profit, and all you have to say otherwise, is that it's not mentioned in the bible.

What basis do we have to assume this was the case in the early New Testament church?

King Mob wrote: »

I don't, but lacking any evidence to the contrary and basic observation of how social groups work, it's a high probability. About as equal to the probability of the apostles being deluded or duped, but far far far more probable than magic happening.

Just to say the piece you are responding to here is just a section of your previous post that I missed when I was putting in the quote tags, but you raised an interesting point.

I'm doubting that it is really equal, there are many reasons to say that it wouldn't be equal. Much of which seem to be falling on deaf ears. Why would you go out into the world and risk your life if you could just go back to your stable fishing career in Galilee exactly where you started.

As for your mention of magic. Miracles differ from magic in that magicians claim that the power is their own, miracles are generally claimed to be performed by God rather than man. And yes, I believe miracles are possible if God exists. If God doesn't exist then it's bloody ridiculous and I recognise that :pac:

King Mob wrote: »

It is a fair comparison as all those leaders told their followers that they were being targeted by the governments at the time and all of them fell afoul of the law on many occasions, especially Koresh.
Different scale, but same bull**** really.

Falling foul of the law != being put to death by the State just because you believed what you did. Again, severely underestimating the scenario of the New Testament church.

jc bamford

Kristofferson

Jesus was a Capricorn, he ate organic foods.
He believed in love and peace and never wore no shoes.
Long hair, beard and sandals and a funky bunch of friends.
Reckon they'd just nail him up if He come down again.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

What basis do we have to assume this was the case in the early New Testament church?

I'm not assuming anything. I'm stating there are many ways to make a profit in a cult like that, which there are. And if there's ways to make a profit of some kind, they have a reason to lie.
Now how are you so sure that they couldn't have been making money from it?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm doubting that it is really equal, there are many reasons to say that it wouldn't be equal. Much of which seem to be falling on deaf ears. Why would you go out into the world and risk your life if you could just go back to your stable fishing career in Galilee exactly where you started.

Several reasons which we've be repeating but you've been fobbing off.
They were always lying and were caught only to have their story embellished.
They started to believe their own ****.
They truly believed in the message but felt the supernatural stuff was needed to sell it to people.

All of these have modern day examples

Jakkass wrote: »

As for your mention of magic. Miracles differ from magic in that magicians claim that the power is their own, miracles are generally claimed to be performed by God rather than man. And yes, I believe miracles are possible if God exists. If God doesn't exist then it's bloody ridiculous and I recognise that :pac:

I use magic to denote anything supernatural be it gods or fairies or psychic waves. It's all the same.

Jakkass wrote: »

Falling foul of the law != being put to death by the State just because you believed what you did. Again, severely underestimating the scenario of the New Testament church.

Dude, David Koresh's compound was burnt down. The American government were going to come down hard on Jim Jones. L Ron's wife was arrested by the government.
All because "they believed in what they did."

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not assuming anything. I'm stating there are many ways to make a profit in a cult like that, which there are. And if there's ways to make a profit of some kind, they have a reason to lie.
Now how are you so sure that they couldn't have been making money from it?

I believe that some of them were financially supported. Paul particularly mentions that he was financially supported by the church at Thessalonica out of their own charity but not out of him requesting it. He also mentions that he had times with little. Indeed, he also writes that although he didn't expect to get paid he argues that there is no reason why ministers shouldn't receive a salary for what they do (1 Corinthians 9). There is simply no evidence that the Apostles were like megachurch pastors though.

King Mob wrote: »

Several reasons which we've be repeating but you've been fobbing off.
They were always lying and were caught only to have their story embellished.
They started to believe their own ****.
They truly believed in the message but felt the supernatural stuff was needed to sell it to people.

I'm not "fobbing them off" per sé. I'm just suggesting that they aren't likely.

King Mob wrote: »

I use magic to denote anything supernatural be it gods or fairies or psychic waves. It's all the same.

I don't think it is though. Magic has different implications.

King Mob wrote: »

Dude, David Koresh's compound was burnt down. The American government were going to come down hard on Jim Jones. L Ron's wife was arrested by the government.
All because "they believed in what they did."

What have I been arguing? I haven't been arguing that people can die for their faith. I have been arguing that it is extremely unlikely that people would put their lives to such extreme risk if they knew that it was a lie.

So by claiming that people die for their beliefs you're essentially backing up what I've been arguing all along.

As for David Koresh, sure you're right in the sense that the US Government came down on him. He had over $100,000 worth of weapons that he was intending to use if I remember correctly. There is nothing to suggest that first century Christianity was violent though.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that some of them were financially supported. Paul particularly mentions that he was financially supported by the church at Thessalonica out of their own charity but not out of him requesting it. He also mentions that he had times with little. Indeed, he also writes that although he didn't expect to get paid he argues that there is no reason why ministers shouldn't receive a salary for what they do (1 Corinthians 9). There is simply no evidence that the Apostles were like megachurch pastors though.

And all the donations in Scientology are out of their own charity but not out of him requesting it.
And every cult leader says that you shouldn't get paid for the services they're doing. They lie.

Also using the bible as a source for this? Really?

Also profit don't always mean money.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not "fobbing them off" per sé. I'm just suggesting that they aren't likely.

But not addressing them or explaining why they aren't likely...
That's exactly fobbing off Jakkass.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it is though. Magic has different implications.

It's all the same nonsense frankly.
It's like the distinction between a mutant and a mutate in X-men comics. There's a clear cut distinction, but it's between fictional things.

Jakkass wrote: »

What have I been arguing? I haven't been arguing that people can die for their faith. I have been arguing that it is extremely unlikely that people would put their lives to such extreme risk if they knew that it was a lie.

So by claiming that people die for their beliefs you're essentially backing up what I've been arguing all along.

The reason I put it in inverted commas was to signify it's the line touted by all of them for the reason why the government or who ever were coming down.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for David Koresh, sure you're right in the sense that the US Government came down on him. He had over $100,000 worth of weapons that he was intending to use if I remember correctly. There is nothing to suggest that first century Christianity was violent though.

Yea, but the government was still coming down on him, so why didn't he give up his cult and go home when this happened? How come he was willing to die for what he believed in?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight - I've explained rather simply how the circumstances clearly differ from a suicide cult, but if you want to continue being patently dishonest that's up to you I guess

And I've explained that Johnstown was not a suicide cult. They killed themselves rather than be captured by the "enemy". They were not preaching suicide as some soft of doctrine, like the Heaven's Gate group. The parallels with the Apostles dying rather than renouncing Jesus are all there.

I don't know if you are being dishonest by continuously referring to it as such or if you are simply unfamiliar with Jonestown. Either way, Jonestown demonstrates that naivety of your position.

Whether you care to admit it or not it is a clear example of people prepared to die for something some of them at least knew was a lie. Something by your own argument shouldn't happen because they have nothing to gain by it.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

What have I been arguing? I haven't been arguing that people can die for their faith. I have been arguing that it is extremely unlikely that people would put their lives to such extreme risk if they knew that it was a lie.

So by claiming that people die for their beliefs you're essentially backing up what I've been arguing all along.

Except they made up those beliefs in the first place.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for David Koresh, sure you're right in the sense that the US Government came down on him. He had over $100,000 worth of weapons that he was intending to use if I remember correctly. There is nothing to suggest that first century Christianity was violent though.

What does that have to do with anything. If you are puzzled as to why people are saying you are fobbing points off Jakkass, just look at this

How does Koresh having weapons mean he didn't die for a belief he himself must have know at some point was a lie, something under your logic shouldn't happen?

Him having weapons is utterly irrelevant to the point, as I'm sure you are aware. Its like saying Oh no it is totally different Koresh had a blue jumper on at the time, and jumpers weren't even invented in 1st century Palestine.

Using your logic that people don't die for a belief they know to be a lie, how do you explain Jim Jones and David Koresh? Or the countless other cult leaders?

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

Except they made up those beliefs in the first place.

You think that means they didn't believe them? Jones, by all reports, was pretty weird - it's likely that he believed his own story. Certainly more likely than that he chose to kill himself without believing it.

Please bear in mind that I'm only arguing this point so that we can get off the distracting irrelevancy of arguing over whether people will die for something they believe to be a lie (I don't believe very many people would) and onto arguing the far more important question as to why the apostles evidently believed what they did.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Except they made up those beliefs in the first place.

How do we know this? Again, making the assumption without providing any reason doesn't make for a good discussion.

Wicknight wrote: »

How does Koresh having weapons mean he didn't die for a belief he himself must have know at some point was a lie, something under your logic shouldn't happen?

The reason he came into conflict with the State was largely for this reason.

Wicknight wrote: »

Him having weapons is utterly irrelevant to the point, as I'm sure you are aware. Its like saying Oh no it is totally different Koresh had a blue jumper on at the time, and jumpers weren't even invented in 1st century Palestine.

See above.

Wicknight wrote: »

Using your logic that people don't die for a belief they know to be a lie, how do you explain Jim Jones and David Koresh? Or the countless other cult leaders?

Did David Koresh know that his belief was a lie?
As for Jim Jones, I've explained quite a few times now that suicide cults differ very much from the New Testament church. I would suspect that he had destructive tendencies and was suicidal. That's largely what drove him to manipulate others. As far as I can tell none of the Apostles had this motivation. Although actually he could have still believed in it.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

And all the donations in Scientology are out of their own charity but not out of him requesting it.
And every cult leader says that you shouldn't get paid for the services they're doing. They lie.

You know that the Church of Scientology charge for their services. This is why they don't receive a tax exemption. They are run effectively as a business.

King Mob wrote: »

Also using the bible as a source for this? Really?

Yes, I am. It is one of the most contemporary accounts to the actual happenings. The dating of the texts themselves would confirm this. I'm happy for you to demonstrate that I am wrong by bringing something else to the table, but I have good enough reason to believe that the New Testament accounts are accurate given what we know about the behaviour of Christians in the Roman Empire from other sources.

King Mob wrote: »

Also profit don't always mean money.
But not addressing them or explaining why they aren't likely...
That's exactly fobbing off Jakkass.

Explain?

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, but the government was still coming down on him, so why didn't he give up his cult and go home when this happened? How come he was willing to die for what he believed in?

That's not even the question I'm dealing with King Mob and I've explained it time and time again on this thread. I'm arguing that it is extremely unlikely that people would risk their lives for what they clearly knew was fictitious. I have no doubt that it isn't surprising to see people martyred for what they actually believe.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

You know that the Church of Scientology charge for their services. This is why they don't receive a tax exemption. They are run effectively as a business.

And do you honestly think that they up front tell people its a service charge?
No, they dress it up as a "charitable donation" and pressure them into paying it while also making them think they are doing because of they own charity.
And do you really think that they would record their ridiculous charges in any of their writings?

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I am. It is one of the most contemporary accounts to the actual happenings. The dating of the texts themselves would confirm this. I'm happy for you to demonstrate that I am wrong by bringing something else to the table, but I have good enough reason to believe that the New Testament accounts are accurate given what we know about the behaviour of Christians in the Roman Empire from other sources.

And L Ron Hubbard's writings are similarly dated to the right time and explain how L Ron is a nice charitable, humble man.
Do you think they'll mention his private pleasure yacht? Or cash piles?

You are arguing the same as if you were arguing that L Ron Hubbard had no incentive to lie, because it said so in his books.

And Jakkass, you should know about the burden of proof. You have no excuse for that poor bit of reasoning.

Jakkass wrote: »

Explain?

It's all explained there. You didn't address any of those points, you simply said they were unlikely but didn't elaborate.

But if you mean the profit comment:
Well there's a desire for fame or to be worshipped, sexual favours, goods and services rended by devoted worshippers....
And so on.

Jakkass wrote: »

That's not even the question I'm dealing with King Mob and I've explained it time and time again on this thread. I'm arguing that it is extremely unlikely that people would risk their lives for what they clearly knew was fictitious. I have no doubt that it isn't surprising to see people martyred for what they actually believe.

But David Koresh was making it up, yet stuck to his fake guns even with the ATF knocking at his door.
Jim Jones was making it up, yet stuck to his fake guns enough to kill him and everyone around him.
L. Ron Hubbard was making it up, yet stuck to his fake guns while the US government was coming after him.
Joseph Smith was clearly making it up, yet stuck to his fake guns when there was a lynch mob at his door.

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You think that means they didn't believe them?

Not necessarily. I think it is entirely possible that people who invent stories about themselves in order to advance themselves in the moment can at a later time come to believe these stories actually happened, believe their own hype for example.

I've no trouble with the idea that the apostles invented the story of Jesus' resurrection soon after Jesus' death yet later had become convinced of the truth of the stories they had earlier invented, so convinced they would have been prepared to die to continue to believe them true.

This is not in anyway inconsistent with human behavior in cults as Jakkass or Jimitime suggest.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Please bear in mind that I'm only arguing this point so that we can get off the distracting irrelevancy of arguing over whether people will die for something they believe to be a lie (I don't believe very many people would) and onto arguing the far more important question as to why the apostles evidently believed what they did.

Well to be honest I think we will never know why they believed what they believed.

But we cannot in anyway rule out perfectly natural explanations for why they believed what they believe and did what they did, and as such the claims by Christians that the most reasonable explanation to explain their actions is that the story is true is frankly insultingly stupid.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

How do we know this? Again, making the assumption without providing any reason doesn't make for a good discussion.

Because David Koresh and Jim Jones where not prophets sent by God. I think we can all agree on that.

Jakkass wrote:

The reason he came into conflict with the State was largely for this reason.

The reason he came into conflict with the State is irrelevant to the question of whether he was prepared to die for something he himself made up.

Do you agree that David Koresh was not a prophet sent by God?

Do you agree that David Koresh must have, at some point, made up this claim?

Do you agree that despite this he still died holding on to this false claim rather than simply walking out of the compound, putting his hands up and saying "Yup I made it all up"

Jakkass wrote:

Did David Koresh know that his belief was a lie?

That is a good question. It is entirely possible that people will believe their own lies, which is why it is entirely possible that the Apostles would lie about seeing Jesus after his death while later believing this actually happened, even to the point of death.

Again none of this as inconsistent with human psychology as you try to suggest.

Jakkass wrote:

As for Jim Jones, I've explained quite a few times now that suicide cults differ very much from the New Testament church.

Of course they differ. But they don't differ in any way that supports you point. Jonestown, as I've said, was not a suicide cult. The doctrine was not suicide as the fulfillment of any doctrine.

They killed themselves rather than be captured. I really don't know how many times you are going to continue to ignore this point.

Jakkass wrote:

As far as I can tell none of the Apostles had this motivation.

Oh don't be so silly, you have no idea what the motivations of the Apostles were. For all you know Jesus picked the most mentally unstable people to follow him because they were the easiest to manipulate and control.

Imagine how the official book of the followers of Jones would have written the story of the Jonestown. You think they would have described Jones as mentally unstable with suicidal tendencies?

The Mad Hatter

Hey Wick, um, would you mind editing my name out of your second post there? That was Jakkass who said all that...

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that whether it's true that people would die for something they don't believe in or not is speculative and irrelevant. The important point is whether their dying for things that they did believe is any evidence of its truth. Obviously it's not, but as long as the first point is being debated, the second can't be approached.

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Hey Wick, um, would you mind editing my name out of your second post there? That was Jakkass who said all that...

Whoops

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that whether it's true that people would die for something they don't believe in or not is speculative and irrelevant. The important point is whether their dying for things that they did believe is any evidence of its truth. Obviously it's not, but as long as the first point is being debated, the second can't be approached.

The only issue with that is that the Christian logic is that if these people only died for stuff they believed that must mean that what they saw was true because they claim to be eye witnesses to a resurrected Jesus.

The idea is that if they claimed to have seen Jesus, and no one made up the resurrection, then it must have happened.

This is deeply flawed reasoning. People do die for things they make up. People also believe things they make up.

No matter which position one takes there is no support for the truth of the resurrection from the actions of the followers. Nothing the early Christians did is inconsistent with the resurrection not actually happening.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm arguing that it is extremely unlikely that people would risk their lives for what they clearly knew was fictitious.

And plenty of people will cheerfully die for a sufficiently powerful idea they thought was true. That's the point you're missing.

Zombrex

One of my favourite examples of things like this is the case of the escaped Red Panda from a Dutch zoo.

Following a press report over 100 people called the police station to report sightings of the red panda. The only problem was the panda had been killed on the rail tracks just outside the zoo. He had never made it more than a few meters passed the fence.

Despite this over 100 people felt confident enough to ring the police station to report what they had seen.

The idea that rumors of a resurrected Jesus would appear after his death is anything but far fetched, nor is the idea that people would claim to be one of the people who had seen him. Nor does this have to start with them claiming to interact with him like in the Bible, but such stories can start small end be embellished to the point where people are having whole conversations with him that never happened.

Again you do not have to look far outside of Christianity to find examples of such things. Remember the reports a while back that asylum seekers were getting hundreds of euros for hair cuts? Remember how everyone knew someone who knew a hair dresser who had seen such a thing?

It would be almost more surprising if there wasn't such rumors after Jesus' death.

Galvasean

I wouldn't be all that surprised if there were people going around claiming to be him too. In the days before TV, newspapers etc. Jesus' face wouldn't have been common knowledge.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

I wouldn't be all that surprised if there were people going around claiming to be him too. In the days before TV, newspapers etc. Jesus' face wouldn't have been common knowledge.

True.

Even those who knew him it is not uncommon for people in times of stress or grief, particular due to something bigger than just the person (after all there was the whole doctrine Jesus would have preached) to imagine that other people are the person.

Funny enough the Bible describes the apostles not recognizing the resurrected Jesus when they first see him, only afterwards when they hear him speak do they realize it is him. The Bible doesn't go into why, but it is not surprising if the person really wasn't Jesus that they had seen at all.

One has to bear in mind at all times that the Bible was written by believers. But based on modern understanding of human psychology one can still find little hints at what was probably place through passages such as this.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

And plenty of people will cheerfully die for a sufficiently powerful idea they thought was true. That's the point you're missing.

No, it isn't what I'm missing. I agree with you in so far as this occurs. I've said this numerous times throughout this thread. We can't argue as to whether or not the disciples were deluded until we can effectively remove the possibility that they died for what they clearly knew was a lie.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

We can't argue as to whether or not the disciples were deluded until we can effectively remove the possibility that they died for what they clearly knew was a lie.

In the context of some of the other things that you're accepting without question that's a rather small distinction to make

Regardless of that, the following are some of the possibilities that we must consider:

1. They had first-hand experience of genuinely miraculous happenings and chose to die because of that.
2. They had first-hand experience of genuinely miraculous happenings and did not choose to die because of that, but either pretended to die, or the subsequent accounts were edited to say they did.
3. They thought they had first-hand experience of genuinely miraculous happenings and chose to die because of that.
4. They thought they had first-hand experience of genuinely miraculous happenings and did not choose to die because of that, but either pretended to die, or the subsequent accounts were edited to say they did.
5. They received accurate reports of genuinely miraculous happenings and chose to die because of that.
6. They received inaccurate reports of genuinely miraculous happenings, but interpreted them as miraculous anyway, and chose to die because of that.
7. They received accurate reports of non-miraculous happenings, but interpreted them as miraculous, and chose to die because of that.
8. They received inaccurate reports of non-miraculous happenings, but interpreted them as miraculous, and chose to die because of that.
9. They received genuine reports of genuinely miraculous happenings, but either pretended to die, or the subsequent accounts were edited to say they did.
10. They received inaccurate reports of genuinely miraculous happenings, but either pretended to die, or the subsequent accounts were edited to say they did.
11. They received genuine reports of non-miraculous happenings, but interpreted them as miraculous, but either pretended to die, or the subsequent accounts were edited to say they did.
12. They received inaccurate reports of non-miraculous happenings, but interpreted them as miraculous, but either pretended to die, or the subsequent accounts were edited to say they did.

These twelve choices are also contingent upon the apostles trusting what they were told about life after death, or subsequent reports being edited to say they did. Which will give you, I think, 48 possibilities and no doubt more if I were in a more querulous state of mind

However, you have decided upon choice (1) and discard, without much apparent consideration, the other 47 possibilities (and no doubt more) which seems a trifle naive in the context of what we know about religions, religious stories, the ancient world, political religions, people's tendency to lie, people's tendency to trust where it's not warranted, and so on and on.

coffee_cake

robindch wrote: »

These twelve choices are also contingent upon the apostles trusting what they were told about life after death, or subsequent reports being edited to say they did. Which will give you, I think, 48 possibilities and no doubt more if I were in a more querulous state of mind

12 options, one for each of them :pac::pac:

philologos

robindch wrote: »

However, you have decided upon choice (1) and discard, without much apparent consideration, the other 47 possibilities (and no doubt more) which seems a trifle naive in the context of what we know about religions, religious stories, the ancient world, political religions, people's tendency to lie, people's tendency to trust where it's not warranted, and so on and on.

I don't discard any of these possibilities without question. I just haven't mentioned any of them exclusively on this thread yet. I have been dealing mainly with the possibility that the Apostles would die for a lie they didn't believe in and that they themselves concocted.

I may actually get to these if we can come to the conclusion that this is actually unlikely.

Your claim that I haven't questioned any of the 12 points you have raised (and they are more than likely just 12 due to Biblical scholarship being able to question the claim that the Bible has been heavily edited, and indeed the assumption that they were "told" rather than having actually witnessed the post-Resurrection Jesus.) just because I haven't discussed them is just absurd. Indeed, I think you are better than rushing to premature judgement. I have told people on this thread clearly what I was addressing the possibility the disciples dying for a concocted lie that they themselves don't agree with.

Let's not be dishonest here.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I have been dealing mainly with the possibility that the Apostles would die for a lie they didn't believe in and that they themselves concocted.

Can't say that I noticed this idea drift by, though I haven't read all the thread. And it's certainly a possibility, though a much less likely one than the other possibilities that I listed above.

It doesn't take much imagination to conjure up a situation in people might have dreamed up some story, got caught, then got themselves killed without revealing that they'd made it all up.

In fact, now that I think of it, wasn't there some murder trial with that kind of a background here in Ireland or the UK a few years back? One person going to jail for life, while the other got off on the word of the first, when much circumstantial evidence pointed to the fact that the second was solely responsible, and the first wasn't? A husband and wife, if memory serves. The hubbie going to jail, and the missus being let off (they had kids, so the choice was grim, but understandable).

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't discard any of these possibilities without question.

And I didn't say you did -- note the two underlined words here:

robindch wrote: »

you have decided upon choice (1) and discard, without much apparent consideration, the other 47 possibilities (and no doubt more)

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's not be dishonest here.

Indeedy