THEY WOULDNT HAVE DIED FOR A LIE!

[PILGRIMSHOST]

I is clear that all arguments against christianity are pointless and wrong because those that were martyred for their belief in Christ wouldn't have died for a lie. Who would stand accused of something, knowing it to be not true and still take the punishment unattested?

The Bible clearly names saints and their execution based souly on what they believed.
And the vaste world of contributing sources support this claim aswell.

What can prove this to be wrong and thus prove my statement wrong?

Let the truth of God and his word shine through and all truth be revealed as his word clearly says.

[Vladd44]

This is why he had to have his legs broken to suffocate him- then lanced.

But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

At least read your own bible.

[Vladd44]

You cannot build a case on assumption.

1. All Roman soldiers knew that if the death sentence was not fulfilled they too would be committed to death, so I don think this would happen some how.

I would agree that a Roman soldier would be unlikely to deliberately risk his life in this manner. But never underestimate incompetency.

2. To survive the flagging is nearly impossible by itself. 39 strips was the law, the Romans hated the Jews and would often over lap the count regardless. Many died at this stage.

Isn't nearly impossible an overstatement? What % of potential cross victims died at the flog stage?

4. Three days in a cold tomb embarlmed by heavy herbs and incense which was tradition is hardly what I call intensive care!

Agreed, if I survived a crucifixion I would hope my relatives would notice and take me somewhere else, if Jesus was a real crucifixion survivor hopefully his family did the same.

I cannot say that Jesus was or was not a real person. I do not know if a Jesus ever survived a crucifixion, I am merely countering your assumptions of fact with other possible explanations.

IMO if there ever was this Jesus, and he was crucified, the most likely result was a dead Jesus. And when I say dead, I mean the real dead aka not coming back with all the fun of decay.

[PILGRIMSHOST]

Well any counter case can be made to explain any situation. You say wheres your evidence, I say some flagged people died due to accounts through out history, it didnt only happen in Jesus day. The Roman sodliers were professionals and I cant see them taking down a Living Jesus even after he was inspected to be dead. The Officer present would be acting as Pilates proctor and would have fullfilled the task.

Actually you are making the assumptions. Im stating what the Bible says and using what the Roman and Jewish laws dictated to support the only possible outcome. You say he must have been taken away by his family or he just died. They had to get promision to put him in a tomb otherwise he would have been thrown on to a bone pit. Then nobody could touch him for three days. The disciples were cowering, wishing they had never got involved with Jesus- hence the end of Christianity. But what happened to spread it something significant Must have happened.

[Vladd44]

You say wheres your evidence.

I didn't ask for evidence. The bottom line is there is no evidence to support any viewpoint.

I say some flagged people died due to accounts through out history, it didnt only happen in Jesus day.

I agree.

The Roman sodliers were professionals and I cant see them taking down a Living Jesus even after he was inspected to be dead.

People do make mistakes. Once again, I doubt this happened as well, but it goes to show that your scenario is not the only option.

As I stated earlier, if there was a Jesus who was crucified, I would expect that he died like anyone else. I would also expect him to have stayed dead, people have a tendency to do that.

Actually you are making the assumptions.

Of course I am making assumptions, neither one of us were there.

Im stating what the Bible says and using what the Roman and Jewish laws dictated to support the only possible outcome.

Only possible outcome? No.

I know the bible places Jesus in front of all sorts of dignitaries. I doubt a man who had never bore arms against the roman people would have warranted such audiences.

Shuttling around between Herod and Pilate sound more like after the fact embellishments to improve the standings of pre crucufiction Jesus.

The execution of a relatively minor rabble rouser from a backwoods like Nazareth could hardly be worth the notice of Pilate. Perhaps done in his name as the legal representative of Rome, but nothing more.

I am sure that Jerusalem was not the most exotic post in the Roman Empire. It is not difficult for me to consider the possibility of an overworked underpaid roman making a mistake.

You say he must have been taken away by his family or he just died.

No, I would expect it was his family and/or close disciples that would have gotten the body. Whether he was dead or not at that point is pure speculation either way.

I have little doubt that if he were alive that his family and friends would have considered it to be a miracle.

[Mark_W]

pilgrimshost, I would focus on the aspects of Christianity which do not contradict reason. In other words, belief in the resurrection adds nothing to the moral teaching of Jesus (in fact the whole notion of it seems hostile to the teaching). If you're arguing to prove that Christianity is true because certain miracles did indeed happen, then you are on hopelessly shaky ground. Build your house on a rock.

[The Duke of Vandals]

• If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

-Luke 14:26

Well I would say wheres the evidence they didn't exist?

That a fallacy called "shifting the burden of proof". You want them to count as evidence. You're claiming they're real. I'm challenging how you know all that. You need to support your claims/

We all know Paul existed-you can trace his route around the med and find evidence for his activities spreading the word. His letters and historians mentioning him.

Paul wasn't a disciple. Paul never met Jesus. Nor are we convinced Paul existed. We know someone existed who wrote the letters, but we have no idea who that person was. Many scholars believe it's actually two pople. More on that later.

The question seems to be if Jesus never raised or never existed, then why would paul write about his apostle mates who he claimed to had known Jesus personally and saw him risen?

This is the wrong question to be asking... sort of like, "If Superman's not real then who saved Metropolis from Lex Luthor all those times?"

The answer to your question requires two things.

First, we need to understand what was going on in Judea in 70ce (around the time when Mark, the first gospel, was written). Roman occupation had been going on for a long time. The second temple had just been destroyed. The Romans were oppressing the Jews... over-taxing anyone who claimed to be Jewish. Some Jews saw what would happen: people would stop being Jewish. They (the Jews) needed to invent a story to "re-judify" Judea... a new branch of Judaism that Jews would want to adhere to even if they were being persecuted.

That was the basis for the christ myth; the idea the Jewish messiah had just shown up slightly before living memory into an area full of rabble rousing rabbis (many named Jesus) who had proclaimed things, made trouble for Romans, and clashed with other Jews.

The second thing we need is for you to divorce yourself from your own bias. Imagine for a moment we're discussing the existence of Superman. You'r arguing Superman is obviously a work of fiction, but your opponent is adamantly convinced Lois Lane & Jimmy Olson were real people. Even when you point out there's no reason to believe in these people beyond the pages of Superman comics and show where Jimmy and Lois do things that contradict (like getting married or killed or the like)... your opponent STILL can't address the idea they're fictional, even as a hypothetical.

You've got to be more open-minded than that when it comes to discussing the disciples.

moreover how would vast amounts of christians hassle the Roman empire all over even as far as Egypt if there was no basis for christianity, yet hundreds at a time were willing to be decapitated and persecuted for nothing?

They were people like you. You've never seen the slightest evidence of anything Christianity has claimed, yet if circumstances presented themselves, I have little doubt you'd die for your cause... just like your heroes. Which is exactly what the founders of Christianity wanted; a religion of people willing to dismiss rational objections and die for the dogma they invented.

Theres no way it would spread because out of rumour or old fishermans tales.

You're underestimating the power of guilt / guilt avoidance. Think about all those Roman politicians who stabbed themselves to death rather than face the guilt of public humiliation. Think about all the awful things people do to avoid the feeling of guilt.

We're not talking about a fisherman's tale. We're talking about a meme that causes people to dismiss their rational objections and embrace an obviously impossible story... all because people allegedly died for it.

What, somebody missheard someone else while at the fish market that a guy rose from the dead and acsended into heaven, then ran to the nearest Roman soldier begging to be nailed to a tree?

It really astounds me that Christians aren't able to address the issue their religion is likely fabricated on purpose. Not even as a hypothetical. You guys can talk about Christianity as it's written or as a hypothetical embelishment ("Okay, so let's say you're right and Jesus din't walk on water...") or absurdity (like what you just said about the fish market).

What you can't deal with is the idea Christianity may have been the first century's version of Scientology.

[BozzyB]

David Coresh (sp?) claimed to be god.

His followers actually witnessed him.

They were willing to die for him/be molested by him/kill for him/whatever.

Conclusion: David was right!



Jesus claimed to be god.

His followers actually witnessed him.

They were willing to die for him/kill for him/whatever.

Conlusion: Jesus was right!


Or am I missing something?

[PILGRIMSHOST]

The idea Jews would construct a false religion just to how you say ''re-judify'' judea and that they would want to adhere to it even if they were being persecuted is totally bogas. This makes the fish market conversion plausible!

Along with this it is always stated that how implausible it would be for Josephus to claim Jesus was the Christ because bluntly he was Jewish.

Christianity is esentually designed to be spread by the first disciples by word and deed. If these people didn't exist (it would seem to be the most plausible beginning compared to the alternatives given) then who was Paul (the man who wasn't a disciple, never met Jesus, but does have a historical basis that can be found around the med) visiting and staying with and learning from? Apparently the people who witnessed it all going on originally.

Christianity is founded on a couple of things, without these things there is no christianity (in truth anyway). One of them is the Resurrection. Because without the Resurrection the apostles would never have gone out into all of the world...Therefore this propersiton that they wouldn't have died for a lie is valid.

I don't believe that Jesus even existed, or there would have been something written about him dueing his activities, the gospels would have had more consistency,written far more closer to the ministry of Jesus and would not have been ebellished over time as they obviously have been. The Jesus character is an obvious total rehash of the Zodiac beliefs and the ancient tradition of about 50 or so previous 'real' of ficticious 'SUN GODS'.

Im just trying to find a plausible beginning which obviously only has to be sufficiantly established within the first generation or so, so the next generation would swallow the lot without question.

I needed to masquerade as a Christian apologist to draw insight from those who oppose my original statement. Sorry for the miss-leading pretence.Thanks to all who have replied to my posts, And if anybody has anything further to contribute please do.

[Mark_W]

Where else are we to look for Christianity other than to its founder? I believe christianity is founded on the teaching of life that Jesus speaks about, not on the resurrection.

[The Duke of Vandals]

The idea Jews would construct a false religion just to how you say ''re-judify'' judea and that they would want to adhere to it even if they were being persecuted is totally bogas. This makes the fish market conversion plausible!

Why?

Why is my claim "bogas"?

Because you've been indoctrinated to believe so? Because the implication is too distasteful for you?

Why are you (and most apologists) incapable of dealing with this argument?

Along with this it is always stated that how implausible it would be for Josephus to claim Jesus was the Christ because bluntly he was Jewish.

What? How on earth did we jump to Josephus? Is that really the extent of your argument? No contemporaneous evidence of Jesus? No explanation of how the Romans weren't after the Jews that badly? This is an argument? I shall name it the Bill & Ted fallacy... where one simply declares an argument "bogas" without giving any reasonong / logic / evidence to support the rejection.

Christianity is esentually designed to be spread by the first disciples by word and deed.

Of course it wasn't meant to be spread by the first disciples. The first disciples, according to you, were all dead. It is their deaths that cause people to turn off their rational objections to the christ-myth. "Oh, people DIED for it? Well... it must be true."

If these people didn't exist (it would seem to be the most plausible beginning compared to the alternatives given) then who was Paul (the man who wasn't a disciple, never met Jesus, but does have a historical basis that can be found around the med) visiting and staying with and learning from? Apparently the people who witnessed it all going on originally.

Again, you're demonstrating how incapable you are of dealing with the line of reasoning I have presented. You're still using logic akin to, "Well, who took photographs for Lois Lane if Daily Planet photographer Jimmy Olsen isn't real?" You're not looking at the hypothetical I'm presenting... which is that Christianity is completely fictional. It was contrived by the early (Jewish) church fathers who wanted to spread their own new religion to bring Judea back together. You're not addressing this hypothetical... I can't tell if you're being deliberatly disingenuous or if you're genuinely incapable of imagining a world where a myth was institutionalized.

Christianity is founded on a couple of things, without these things there is no christianity (in truth anyway). One of them is the Resurrection. Because without the Resurrection the apostles would never have gone out into all of the world...Therefore this propersiton that they wouldn't have died for a lie is valid.

The resurrection is a story, Pilgrim. You don't need it to be real for there to be a movement based on it... any more than Xenu needs to be real for Scientology to take off. You have to get people to believe the resurrection happened... and the easiest way to do that is with a powerful appeal to guilt (avoidance): the disciples.

I don't believe that Jesus even existed, or there would have been something written about him dueing his activities, the gospels would have had more consistency,written far more closer to the ministry of Jesus and would not have been ebellished over time as they obviously have been. The Jesus character is an obvious total rehash of the Zodiac beliefs and the ancient tradition of about 50 or so previous 'real' of ficticious 'SUN GODS'.

Im just trying to find a plausible beginning which obviously only has to be sufficiantly established within the first generation or so, so the next generation would swallow the lot without question.

*blinks* What the hell is with this site? First Lotan, now you. "We're not Christian, but we believe their dogma." I don't get that.

Pilgrim, it's a myth. A fantasy concoted by early Jews in the face of Roman oppression.