Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

[POI]

It's 16 minutes.

For Debate:

Christians, is the argument, "who's going to die for a lie", a good and sound argument to present to skeptics? If so, please watch the counter arguments in this above video, and then place your counter answers accordingly.

Mind you, this is also just ASSUMING that all his close followers did indeed martyr themselves....

[boatsnguitars]

Seems I need to revisit that. I was going on memory from decades ago. Good catch.

Your memory was good. Mine not so good. Every time I present my Theory and have to argue it (even with myself) I end up thinking it could indeed relate to James brother of Jesus , called 'Christ', though that still looks like a gloss. Josephus would not have called him by a Christian term, which makes me see it as a gloss, to go with the (at least partial) edits of the Flavian testament. But then, with more James and Jesuses around than a barn has rats, why not explain who they were, IF they were not the Jesus son of Damnaeus, mentioned? So I'm still in doubt.

Incidentally, IF the Flavian Testament is a total edit (which I also think 75% likely) the 'James' reference might explain why Origen apparently refers to a reference to Jesus before the time the Testament is thought to have been added (Eusebius).

In fact, I have a fancy....That the reason there is a similarity between the Flavian Testament and Luke 24 19 - 21 is because Eusebius wrote both of them.

Flavian testament: Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. He was called the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (note this idea of a late date, when Christians were apparently persisting a long time, rather than a few decades after the events referred to - while Josephus died c 100 AD he is thought to have written around the AD 70's.).

Luke 24.19 “What things?” he asked.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21

It's the interesting, perennial problem: We don't know if that was the original text or an interpolation or straight up lie. If only we were like Christians and simply claim it's exactly as we want it to be!

I have seen that hypothesis about Eusebius. The funny thing is that if you mention it to Christians, they'll cry foul. They want to believe they've received the text like Mary herself - virginal. Yet, who were all these writers talking about when they were excoriating people for writing and accepting false or edited texts?!?! Why was Marcion booted out? Why were they complaing about heretics, and false prophets if there weren't any?

So, yes, it's highly likely the James story is an interpolation. I suppose my only point that has weight is - I believe, based on the info we have (edited or not) - is that these guys were trouble-makers. They might have been "Good Trouble Makers" like John Lewis, or bad trouble makers like the KKK - but their willingness to die probably had nothing to do with a belief that Jesus rose from the dead. They may have believed that after the fact while smoking copious amounts of drugs, or through religious fervor, or it might have developed years later as the story morphed.

It's enough to say that may people in a social movement are willing to die for their beliefs. Green Peace claims it, Animal Liberation groups, etc. There are people in Iran, Afghanistan, et al, that risk and lose their lives for their beliefs.

But, I've used the James reference and others to discount the idea that "all the apostles died for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead" - this is patently untrue - or, at best, unfalsifiable.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thanks. I think Christian apologetics has confused a lot of though about history as they think it is about Believe or not. Either we accept it all on faith (any Problems just waved aside) or reject it. This is all part of the 'epistemology package - "How do we know what we know?" incorporating 'If you don't believe the Bible, you can't believe any book".

The arguments about history go on, and out a month ago I watched a debate about the rulers between Akhenaten and Tutankhamen, each arguing for a different princess as ruler. We may never know, but it is nevertheless true (or sure) that after Akhenaten, some of his children ruled and then that dynasty was ended. I could argue the battle of Waterloo or the Bounty or civil war (pick a war - any war) despite ongoing debate, there is broad consensus.

I'm not sure whether Antiquities talks about James brother of Jesus or some other James. Certainly Hegesippus said that James 'the just' (supposed to be Jesus' brother) was slung from a tower, not stoned, so who knows?

What I am sure of is that Gospel Jesus is not the real Jesus, the crucifixion was a Roman execution not a Messianic sacrifice, and the resurrection never happened as, if it did, we'd at least have a common story, and we don't.

That is to say, I do not doubt a real James a real Peter and a real Paul. And yes a real Jesus. Probably. But the Jesus of the Bible is not the real one.....at least not until you dig down a bit.

[boatsnguitars]

Thanks. I think Christian apologetics has confused a lot of though about history as they think it is about Believe or not. Either we accept it all on faith (any Problems just waved aside) or reject it. This is all part of the 'epistemology package - "How do we know what we know?" incorporating 'If you don't believe the Bible, you can't believe any book".

The arguments about history go on, and out a month ago I watched a debate about the rulers between Akhenaten and Tutankhamen, each arguing for a different princess as ruler. We may never know, but it is nevertheless true (or sure) that after Akhenaten, some of his children ruled and then that dynasty was ended. I could argue the battle of Waterloo or the Bounty or civil war (pick a war - any war) despite ongoing debate, there is broad consensus.

I'm not sure whether Antiquities talks about James brother of Jesus or some other James. Certainly Hegesippus said that James 'the just' (supposed to be Jesus' brother) was slung from a tower, not stoned, so who knows?

What I am sure of is that Gospel Jesus is not the real Jesus, the crucifixion was a Roman execution not a Messianic sacrifice, and the resurrection never happened as, if it did, we'd at least have a common story, and we don't.

That is to say, I do not doubt a real James a real Peter and a real Paul. And yes a real Jesus. Probably. But the Jesus of the Bible is not the real one.....at least not until you dig down a bit.

I wrote out the history of the Bible with dates of all early church fathers and apostles, the dates they lived, the date the item was written (pointing out early and late dates by scholars, and Christian's early and late dates), dates of the earliest manuscript, dates of the Caesars at the time, with some main events (civil war, etc.). I'll open a new topic.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #103]

Useful. It is revealing to see how long a stint Pilate had - almost as long as Caiaphas. I'd say it is an indication that they worked well together or, at least had common aims.