skeptichaggis
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 692
I think leumas above sums it up well.
Does Jesus' prediction and acceptance of martyrdom suggest His sincerity?
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
OR...
Most of the story was created out of whole cloth long after any physical Jesus which the legend was based on was long dead. Actually, we sort of know this for a fact.
Most of the story was created out of whole cloth long after any physical Jesus which the legend was based on was long dead. Actually, we sort of know this for a fact.
In fact not any other fiction based on so tenuous an evidence for historicity, as the gospels, would be so hotly and emotionally debated for the establishment of the real historicity of its magic-wielding demigod supernatural hero and his entourage of hobos.
No scholar gets really hot under the collar arguing vehemently that Arthur was a real flesh and blood person albeit not really at all like he is depicted in the fables.
No scholars of Robin Hood (if there are even any) are constantly in contention over the issue of his historicity albeit he never ever even laid eyes on a Friar Tuck or a big Little John not to mention his mortifying green tights and feathered pointy hats.
No scholars or laity give a damn whether Hercules was based on a real flesh and blood person albeit he was not a demigod nor even could kill a dog let alone a lion.
However, in the case of Jesus, the so called scholars (in addition to the laity of course) are not even aware of their extreme special pleading in an attempt to assuage the throbbing pangs of a chronic cognitive dissonance on so many levels and variations touching their inner psyches.
Much like children who are driven to tears and dismay after discovering the level of adult complicity of their society and parents in deceiving them for so long and in so many ways with the Santa fable.
Regardless, they carry on ferociously debating against Jesus’ pure fictiveness postulating tenuous modicums of possible likelihood of perhaps maybe something approaching a near similarity to some kind of similitude of a real person or an amalgam persona who of course had no magical anything but could have been a xenophobic zealously benighted fanatically religious Rabbi or terrorist or freedom fighter or old-new-age
hippie or cult leader.
Last edited:
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
George Washington didn't chop down his father's cherry tree. Betsy Ross didn't sew the American flag.
Imagine what nonsense people could invent back when everyone thought magic was real.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,480
Whenever I hear believers spouting on about Jesus I think of the Great American Hero Paul_BunyanWP. Given a different Age and a century or so . . .
And at least Paul has a opera!
http://englishtouringopera.org.uk/productions/paul-bunyan
Jesus has only a musical.
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
...and few were literate.
Rincewind
Philosopher
This sort of debate often reminds me of when - ages ago - I read a MAD magazine.
It was the story of David Crockett, and the sub-title is what has stuck in my memory - "True stories from the legendary past".
In re-reading the title of this thread, I now wish to change my vote and state that Jesus' prediction and acceptance of martyrdom as told in the New Testament very much "suggests" his sincerity. That is one of the important reasons this story was written in this fashion and why it was incorporated into the Bible: by highlighting the character's willingness to play the martyr role, this allows him to appear to be extra good and wise. In exactly the same way that Washington's willingness to admit to chopping down the cherry tree "suggests" his honesty by the same literary mechanism (although in contrast Washington at least clearly existed).
Now, if you want to take either of these stories as non-fictional...
Now, if you want to take either of these stories as non-fictional...
Last edited:
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
This is why today we worship Socrates, Joan of Arc, and Captain Edward John Smith.
This is based on a misreading of the text which actually says young woman, not virgin.
A parlor trick going back to the Greeks.
Which don't agree with each other.
You mean like the writings of Paul who never met Jesus?
I assume you are asking why the other Messiahs did this. People like, Judas Maccabeus, Simon of Peraea, Athronges, Judas of Galilee , Menahem ben Judah, John of Gischala, and Simon bar Kokhba.
It is not certain, assuming that Jesus was executed by the Romans, that he went willingly; let alone that he intended in advance to seek a martyr's death. Look at the successive Gospel accounts. In the first one Jesus seems anguished. In the last one he has arranged everything voluntarily to fulfil the scriptures. Which version, if either, is more likely to be the true one?
I may add that he is not a martyr in John's account either. He does not give his life for a cause. His death itself is the fulfilment of his role. He is not a willing casualty in the struggle for the fulfilment of any cause external to his own supernatural person.
Rum
Critical Thinker
This discussion is akin to a debate about what colour unicorn poop is.
Rum
Critical Thinker
Well I knew unicorns pooped rainbows - it is a well known actual fact!
..but what colour is a rainbow!
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
1. Which disciples? The only writings we have whose authoriship is actually accepted as an actual apostle are those of St Paul, who by his own admission never actually met Jesus.
The gospels are actually anonymous writings. They got called at some point Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, to give them more authority, but they're anonymous writings. You could just as well call them the gospels of Tom, Dick, Harry and Bob. Furthermore it's clear that they were not eyewitnesses, because Mark makes a hash of everything from geography to customs, and at least two of the others try to just fix Mark's mess and copy wholesale from it, rather than telling the story how they saw it.
So the honest accounts of WHICH disciples?
2. Honest accounts? Please. One thing the early Christians did lots was lie shamelessly, e.g., by claiming to be who they were not.
They were writing their own letters from Paul while Paul was still alive and doing the rounds. Hell, half the letters from Paul that actually made in the bible are forgeries, by people who wanted to give their own New Rules from a position of more authority.
There are DOZENS of letters around signed as from some apostle, and one which claims to be collectively written by all 12 apostles (oh-la-la!), and which even the church calls forgeries. There are dozens of other gospels around, some clearly made from whole cloth (e.g., the infancy gospels). There even is one where basically we catch them in the act, because it's unfinished and copies wholesale from a pagan letter and puts the words in Jesus's mouth to give it more authority.
Even martyrdom stories, they made up dozens of martyrdom stories, and they can't all be true, because they're contradicting each other. The same apostle can't have died in four different ways, in four different places. They were producing a whole genre of gruesome martyrdom porn, basically, precisely because gullible lemmings were and are willing to swallow the most ridiculous lie if you pack it as 'but someone died for it!'
And then there are even more conflicting writings and stories that we don't still have, but are addressed in the books of some church father or another. People soon took to writing whole books just to say 'that one is made up heresy' about whole lists of the many many MANY such lies floating around.
So I hope I can be excused if I'm not impressed by another rehash of the same 'it must be true, because they were HONEST' canard. They were not.
3. So why don't you then believe the same miracles about other people, often claimed to be eyewitness accounts by people, and from right the same time as the supposed event?
There are at the very least thousands of people who can testify that Sathya Sai Baba could materialize small stuff out of thin air, perform miracle healings, even resurrections, could be in two places at the same time, etc. If it's unreasonable for me to reject the Jesus stories as fabrications, do you accept Sathya Sai Baba's miracles as true? Yes? No? Maybe?
Or Sabbatai Zevi actually claimed to be the Jewish messiah, and there are contemporary claims -- as in right from the same year when it supposedly happened -- of him performing a lot of miracles. E.g., he is said to have entered a raging bonfire, stay a bit there, then exit completely untouched by the fire, not even with singed hairs or clothes. He commanded the Sun to stop, and apparently briefly it stopped. (This is one of the few cases where he himself claimed that, not just his disciples did.) And many other miracles. Hell, he's even supposed to have been taken bodily to heavens from the trial presided by the Sultan, and a simulacrum left in his place. Do you then accept him as the Messiah? Yes? No? Maybe?
Etc.
If you answered 'No' to either, and believe those to be fabrications by his disciples, then pray tell, why can't I believe the same about Jesus?
Last edited:
To clarify why I asked the question, I think if Paul, the first century Christians, and the gospel writers were just making up the Bible stories of Jesus' divinity, it would mean that Jesus would have been making things up too. It seems unlikely to me that Jesus would have started a nonmiraculous, very moral sect that after He died just decided to make all the miraculous stories up using a slew of writers and religious leaders. To me, either they and He were making up stories or else they really believed that they happened like they presented them.
So to me, Jesus' choice of going down the route of a martyrdom that He believed his religion predicted and which was likely to come from His many enemies looks like a test of honesty.
So to me, Jesus' choice of going down the route of a martyrdom that He believed his religion predicted and which was likely to come from His many enemies looks like a test of honesty.
Last edited:
Hello, Leumas!
You asked good questions:
In any case, my question is, supposing that Jesus did exist, propose that He was the Messiah, understand the prophecies of the Messiah being killed, understood the intense risk of being killed in a very bad way (crucifixion), why would He choose to go down that path?
Or are we to say that this would be such strong proof that He really believed He was a miraculous Messiah, that either He did believe it or else the alleged facts you mentioned must be fabricated (eg. Jesus couldn't have understood the prophecies because by going down that path it proved He believed He was the Messiah)?
You asked another good question:
Or would one be stuck arguing that either Robin didn't think he was the leader or he didn't understand the religious text, because no reasonable explanation was possible besides belief in this mission?
You asked good questions:
I think it's likely because there were lots of Messianic sects at the time that Jesus was leading one too. Plus, there were people who practised faith healings. So it's not hard to believe that someone appeared in 1st century Judea with Jesus' human attributes as a Messianic leader.
His apostles had a good command of the prophecies of the Messiah's death, as reflected throughout New Testament books.
There are lots of writers who propose this interpretation and discuss Jesus' predictions of this throughout the gospels. I don't find it hard to believe Jesus thought this either since people kept trying to stone him, and plus, John the Baptist got killed like many prophets did.
In any case, my question is, supposing that Jesus did exist, propose that He was the Messiah, understand the prophecies of the Messiah being killed, understood the intense risk of being killed in a very bad way (crucifixion), why would He choose to go down that path?
Or are we to say that this would be such strong proof that He really believed He was a miraculous Messiah, that either He did believe it or else the alleged facts you mentioned must be fabricated (eg. Jesus couldn't have understood the prophecies because by going down that path it proved He believed He was the Messiah)?
You asked another good question:
I think there could easily have been a popular leader or robber named Robin Hood. If he was a religious leader who claimed to practice magic, and his religious book said the people's magical leader had to wear tights, and tights were as bad as being killed by torture, would it be a good proof he thought he was the religious leader if he chose to wear tights?
Or would one be stuck arguing that either Robin didn't think he was the leader or he didn't understand the religious text, because no reasonable explanation was possible besides belief in this mission?
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
But the thing is, we can be pretty sure that there was no character even vaguely resembling the modern story of Robin Hood.
For a start for a while "robin hood" was essentially a generic name for a highwayman. ("Robbin' hood", geddit?) And we know that not only because we have hundreds of "robin hoods" from across a couple of centuries and all over England, and one man can't have done all that, but even a couple where the local constable also writes their actual name.
The first mention of Robin Hood as a proper name is in a moralizing church story in which an evil bandit named Robin Hood -- note that there is no mention of his giving to the poor or fighting for the rightful king or anything -- stays and attends Mass to the end, even though he'd been warned that the posse is coming for him, and God helps him for his piety.
The MODERN idea of Robin Hood is much later romantic fiction, and not only it gives him attributes and deeds that the character originally didn't have, but moves him back in time a couple of centuries too, where he can fight against the usurper king John and all that.
So yes, there COULD have easily been one, but there wasn't.
Just as there COULD have been a mad arab called Abdullah Al Hazred (which is a realistic Arab name and solves the double article problem) who wrote a book about weird ancient cults, but actually there wasn't. Or there COULD have been a Batman or close enough, but there wasn't.
What IS is that gullible lemmings are willing to be gullible: to believe that a story must be based on something historical just because it uses historical props.
For a start for a while "robin hood" was essentially a generic name for a highwayman. ("Robbin' hood", geddit?) And we know that not only because we have hundreds of "robin hoods" from across a couple of centuries and all over England, and one man can't have done all that, but even a couple where the local constable also writes their actual name.
The first mention of Robin Hood as a proper name is in a moralizing church story in which an evil bandit named Robin Hood -- note that there is no mention of his giving to the poor or fighting for the rightful king or anything -- stays and attends Mass to the end, even though he'd been warned that the posse is coming for him, and God helps him for his piety.
The MODERN idea of Robin Hood is much later romantic fiction, and not only it gives him attributes and deeds that the character originally didn't have, but moves him back in time a couple of centuries too, where he can fight against the usurper king John and all that.
So yes, there COULD have easily been one, but there wasn't.
Just as there COULD have been a mad arab called Abdullah Al Hazred (which is a realistic Arab name and solves the double article problem) who wrote a book about weird ancient cults, but actually there wasn't. Or there COULD have been a Batman or close enough, but there wasn't.
What IS is that gullible lemmings are willing to be gullible: to believe that a story must be based on something historical just because it uses historical props.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
And on the topic of whether he actually believed something, see my previous post about the 1666 great fire of London and the confessing sailor.
Did he actually believe that he set the fire, in spite of being many leagues away at sea? Maybe. Possibly.
But... so what? It just makes him a loon, innit?
Did he actually believe that he set the fire, in spite of being many leagues away at sea? Maybe. Possibly.
But... so what? It just makes him a loon, innit?
I think these are good quotes, but they don't say that Joseph Smith thought that he would get killed. I think if he knew he was going to get killed he probably wouldn't have gone, since the government there had promised him protection.
The point about Jesus' sincerity is that it is of no importance whatsoever, even if some of the biographical details in the gospels are authentic. There were other messianic or quasi messianic figures at the time, mentioned by Josephus. They may well have been sincere. But so what? None of them succeeded in ousting the Romans, if that was their intention. It was their failure to secure divine aid in their undertakings that ensured their defeat. Did they believe in God? Did they pray sincerely for his aid and favour? Yes, I suppose they did, but so what?