Would the apostolic fathers have had motivation to lie ?

[dude]

I want to make something abundantly clear: I'm not a missionary and this is not some rhetorical challenge to prove me wrong.

My story with religion goes as far as I was raised in a relatively conservative Christian family, when I was in my teens I decided that I hated the concept of hell and pretty much chucked the whole thing. Until recently I didn't really think of looking much further into Christian origins than the bible itself.

Apparently there was a chain of people who had contact with Jesus (and subsequently a chain that had contact with at least 2 of his disciples who cooberated the resurrection). Apparently there is a whole "who would die for a lie" argument that gets kicked around a lot.

The two most common explanations I hear are that disciples either convinced themselves that they had seen a resurrected Jesus, or lied to keep the movement going. I don't guess I find either to be impossible (although I find the latter more probable than the former). t seems much simpler to me that the guys in charge of early churches may have claimed apostolic succession in order to maintain legitimacy...but I don't know much about the early Church would these guys have had any kind of power that was worth lying over ?

Can anyone offer anything to support any of the other explanations ?

Please help a hick with a headache.

 

[shandyjan]

There was a thread on this with some good responses.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167271

Also mentioned in there are forgeries.

Also this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151964

We need to ask some questions.

1. Are there alternative explanations for the existence of the claims? Yes.
2. Do the claims fit with what we know about the laws of physics and the natural world? No.

Stories documented long after the fact are too easily mis-rememberd, embelished or misheard. Of course there are alternative explanations. People lie and or are sincerly deluded or simply mistaken. There are examples all around us and throughout history.

Some day people might legitimatly argue that Paul Bunyan had a giant blue ox.

If thousands of people sincerly believe that they saw the sun dance in the sky but that doesn't fit the laws of physics and the natural world then we have reason enough to dismiss it without better evidence.

Eyewitness testiomny is poor evidence. Third hand eyewitness testimony is piss-poor to say the least.

The amazing thing about human nature is that anyone would believe in the claims giving all of what we know about people and thier ability to turn mythology and oral tradition into rock solid beliefs.

 

[CurtC]

Apparently there was a chain of people who had contact with Jesus (and subsequently a chain that had contact with at least 2 of his disciples who cooberated the resurrection). Apparently there is a whole "who would die for a lie" argument that gets kicked around a lot.

You've got a few misconceptions here. First, we have no way to be absolutely sure that there even was a Jesus. On balance, I think he probably did.

Next, the four Gospels were written several decades after this Jesus guy supposedly was executed.

Any stories about what he said or did are most likely just myths that developed in the decades after he was executed.

 

[DC]

oral stories tend to get totaly twisted and exaggerated when told often enough and then written down decades later based on hearsay.

 

[Ethnikos]

I want to make something abundantly clear:
*snip
Can anyone offer anything to support any of the other explanations ?

You did get one thing clear, after that it gets real fuzzy.
Are you looking for a way to defend your non-belief to your Christian relatives, or are wondering how you could get back into believing?
Since you are on a sceptical site, the first would be the more reasonable guess.
The fact that I have to guess may be an indication to you that some more fleshing out of your inquiry would be appropriate.
Or the link provided will give some ideas as to which direction you want to proceed in.

 

[Brainache]

As far as I can tell from what I've read of the subject, the early Xtian church(following the teachings of Paul) was in conflict with the Jewish sect to which Jesus belonged.

If the Habbakkuk Pesher of the Dead Sea Scrolls is, as it appears to be, a very different take on the events described in the NT Book Of Acts, then James the brother of Jesus and the 12 in Jerusalem hated what Paul was telling the Gentiles. These people refer to "The Liar" who is going around preaching salvation without the Law. They went so far as to try to kill Paul.

So I guess there goes any claim of the early Pauline churches to have any authority from Jesus or the Apostles.

http://qumran.com/ShiningaLightintheDarkness/pesher1.htm

 

[Susheel]

Our existence today is a result of pure chance. A planet with the right conditions around a sun of the right size and temperature resulted in series of chance events that lead to the evolution of life in a particular way that ultimately resulted in us. And everything is still "a work in progress".

In this milieu, in a harsh desert land, a fiercely proud tribal community under the foreign yoke seek an identity. Like all peoples they have a sense of common identity and seek to either find reasons for their present plight or try to improve it.

Yeshua came out of a social milieu when one was probably tripping over prophets in street corners. Perhaps his unique slightly hippy, flower child style preachings of universal love and brotherhood appealed to a small audience. After his death, the whispers among them grew and took a life of its own and there was probably some who linked it to some of the prophecies in the already existant religion (his original teachings seem to be reformist rather than something radically different).
There could have been as much a chance that a major religion today would have involved bachanalian orgies. In the end, i think it was all pure happenstance.

 

[Ignosticist]

who would die for a lie? Heaven's Gate

who would die for a lie?

This guys did . It is either that... or they are the one true religion

 

[Bikewer]

You might try reading some of the books of Bart Ehrman, the NT scholar. As noted above, none of the "gospels" were written by the named authors, and none of them were written by first-person witnesses to the events.
They were all rendered in written form anywhere from 50 to 150 years after the events, by individuals who were trained scribes and writers, not illiterate fishermen as comprised most of Jesus' inner circle.
By the time any of the oral traditions were committed to writing, the early Christian church had already gone through numbers of schisms and there were a very wide variety of beliefs and "Jesus cults" which all had wildly differing views of Jesus' purpose and nature.
Over 100 "gospels" are known to scholars, the vast majority of which did not, of course, make it into the Canon. The four that did were chosen because they most closely followed the thinking that had come to dominate the early church several hundred years after the facts.

 

[Susheel]

Besides which the infighting among the early leaders of the "church" was at times brutal. I have always been fascinated by the Nicean Creed. A panel to decide what ultimately became christianity.

 

[Robin]

I want to make something abundantly clear: I'm not a missionary and this is not some rhetorical challenge to prove me wrong.

My story with religion goes as far as I was raised in a relatively conservative Christian family, when I was in my teens I decided that I hated the concept of hell and pretty much chucked the whole thing. Until recently I didn't really think of looking much further into Christian origins than the bible itself.

Apparently there was a chain of people who had contact with Jesus (and subsequently a chain that had contact with at least 2 of his disciples who cooberated the resurrection).

Which disciples? Which texts? Which texts report a disciple describing the resurrection or corroborating an account of the resurrection?

Apparently there is a whole "who would die for a lie" argument that gets kicked around a lot.

The two most common explanations I hear are that disciples either convinced themselves that they had seen a resurrected Jesus, or lied to keep the movement going. I don't guess I find either to be impossible (although I find the latter more probable than the former). t seems much simpler to me that the guys in charge of early churches may have claimed apostolic succession in order to maintain legitimacy...but I don't know much about the early Church would these guys have had any kind of power that was worth lying over ?

Can anyone offer anything to support any of the other explanations ?

Please help a hick with a headache.

First you need to have a look and list any sources that claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus.

Who? John? But most say it is simply someone writing in the voice of the apostle, not the apostle himself.

Apart from that we have no claimed eyewitness statements of the resurrections. (Paul's claimed sighting related to after the alleged resurrection and was more in the form of a vision).

We don't even have hearsay accounts. All we have are third party accounts and we don't know if they are first-hand, second-hand, third-hand or what.

Having a source say "Peter saw the resurrected Jesus" does not imply that Peter claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus.

So the problem of why the disciples would lie does not arise because we have no examples of a disciple claiming to have met the resurrected Jesus.

The question really is "Would the writers of these texts be motivated to lie?" or "Might the writers of these texts believed what they wrote but been wrong".

 

[dirtywick]

As far as I'm aware, none of the apostles are particularly well documented in life or death, but rather much of their lives and particularly their martyrdom is based only in church tradition.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Probably the most important resource for the nonexistence of Jesus Christ of the New Testament is found in the unadulterated writings of Josephus Flavianum, General of the army defending Jerusalem against the Romans in the seige of CE 70. He wrote both a History of the Jews and Jewish Wars. In the first, there are over 20 Jesus' mentioned, none of which bear any resemblence to the fictional Jesus. The closest example actually was tortured by Pontius Pilate and discussed in detail by Josephus. He's just a kook running around Jerusalem crying "Woe is Israel", and Pilate lets him go. He is killed by a boulder launched by a Roman Seige engine.

The first positive evidence that Christianity exists is found in the exchange between Pliny the Younger, prefect during the reign of the Emperor Trajan, 112 CE. There is no earthly Jesus in this new secret religion. But it is spreading like wildfire, and taking people and money away from the establishment religions. Pliny says it is a huge problem, but by persecuting them he temporarily checks the spread.

The letters of Paul came first, forged in Marcionite circles. By around 130 CE it looks like the gospel of Mark is put together, which is taken completely from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), mainly Isaiah. I mean the original Mark, which ended at the empty tomb. It is very important to understand the last line of the original version of Mark. The women see the empty tomb. They run away. They tell no-one because they were afraid.

When Christianity is first introduced as having a real person in its history (the epistles forged by Marcion have a celestial, not earthly christ), it has to explain why nobody has ever heard of this superstar Jesus before. It's because despite cheating death, the women are too afraid to tell anyone. So the Gospel of Mark arises out of the mist to tell this story, with nobody even willing to take credit for the writing of it at the time.

There is no chain of anyone who met any earthly Jesus. The alleged apostle Paul is emphatic he had a vision on the way to Damascus, not that he met Jesus in person. The proto-catholics in Rome are the ones who started the legend of the immediate disciples, and most importantly Peter so that they could claim title to the religious throne: the Papacy.

The crazy diversity of early Christianity was suppressed for over a thousand years, beginning most importantly with the Emperor Constantine who declared Christianity the official Roman religion. Their first great council was at Nicea in 325, and by the end of that century they had completed several others that resulted in the official canon. The Marcionites could not be defeated so they were co-opted with the inclusion of doctored letters of the alleged Paul and other forgeries in that name.

So the Marcionites are represented by the Pauline letters and the Proto Catholics are pushing the gospels. They are merged through the forgery of the book of Acts, which has Paul supposedly meeting the Jerusalem disciples.

There was no martyred peter or paul, and for that matter there was no Jesus Christ either. What started Christianity can be found in the very first mention of it in the historical record: the Pliny/Trajan exchange.

They said **** the church. **** having to buy sacrificial animals for the authorities. We are going to eat together in our own homes and give nothing to anyone but ourselves. They pledged not to lie or steal or bear false witness too, but the main thing was keeping the fruits of their own labor instead of giving it to the rich and powerful in the name of God. That is why Christianity could not be stopped in the early going.

So what the Roman state authority did was co-opt it instead of trying to suppress it. They made it a state monopoly religion and used it to control the people. That is meant in the most literal sense because every single person had to register in a Church Parish, and the religion became the law.

In the context of this actual history, the idea about who would "die for a lie" is not even a relevant question.

This whole idea of "original sin" was manipulative guilt-trip crap to convince the people they had to give their animals, first fruits, and money to the authorities. There was no Adam and Eve, and no original sin. But instead of removing the original stupid story, we invent a new one. It is a sacrifice that ends all sacrifices, so we can just stay at home eating what we produce instead of giving it to someone richer than us.

Well of course, by the authorities taking over Christianity you got everyone back in a big centrally-controlled church, and the obligation to tithe. The tradition of a big meal eaten together in someone's home was replaced with a wafer and an ounce of grape juice. The first Christians deserve some respect for standing up to authority and telling them to kiss off, we're not giving you a thing. But within a few centuries, it was just a state machine milking the duped masses.

Do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[bikerdruid]

Probably the most important resource for the nonexistence of Jesus Christ of the New Testament is found in the unadulterated writings of Josephus Flavianum, General of the army defending Jerusalem against the Romans in the seige of CE 70. He wrote both a History of the Jews and Jewish Wars. In the first, there are over 20 Jesus' mentioned, none of which bear any resemblence to the fictional Jesus. The closest example actually was tortured by Pontius Pilate and discussed in detail by Josephus. He's just a kook running around Jerusalem crying "Woe is Israel", and Pilate lets him go. He is killed by a boulder launched by a Roman Seige engine.

The first positive evidence that Christianity exists is found in the exchange between Pliny the Younger, prefect during the reign of the Emperor Trajan, 112 CE. There is no earthly Jesus in this new secret religion. But it is spreading like wildfire, and taking people and money away from the establishment religions. Pliny says it is a huge problem, but by persecuting them he temporarily checks the spread.

The letters of Paul came first, forged in Marcionite circles. By around 130 CE it looks like the gospel of Mark is put together, which is taken completely from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), mainly Isaiah. I mean the original Mark, which ended at the empty tomb. It is very important to understand the last line of the original version of Mark. The women see the empty tomb. They run away. They tell no-one because they were afraid.

When Christianity is first introduced as having a real person in its history (the epistles forged by Marcion have a celestial, not earthly christ), it has to explain why nobody has ever heard of this superstar Jesus before. It's because despite cheating death, the women are too afraid to tell anyone. So the Gospel of Mark arises out of the mist to tell this story, with nobody even willing to take credit for the writing of it at the time.

There is no chain of anyone who met any earthly Jesus. The alleged apostle Paul is emphatic he had a vision on the way to Damascus, not that he met Jesus in person. The proto-catholics in Rome are the ones who started the legend of the immediate disciples, and most importantly Peter so that they could claim title to the religious throne: the Papacy.

The crazy diversity of early Christianity was suppressed for over a thousand years, beginning most importantly with the Emperor Constantine who declared Christianity the official Roman religion. Their first great council was at Nicea in 325, and by the end of that century they had completed several others that resulted in the official canon. The Marcionites could not be defeated so they were co-opted with the inclusion of doctored letters of the alleged Paul and other forgeries in that name.

So the Marcionites are represented by the Pauline letters and the Proto Catholics are pushing the gospels. They are merged through the forgery of the book of Acts, which has Paul supposedly meeting the Jerusalem disciples.

There was no martyred peter or paul, and for that matter there was no Jesus Christ either. What started Christianity can be found in the very first mention of it in the historical record: the Pliny/Trajan exchange.

They said **** the church. **** having to buy sacrificial animals for the authorities. We are going to eat together in our own homes and give nothing to anyone but ourselves. They pledged not to lie or steal or bear false witness too, but the main thing was keeping the fruits of their own labor instead of giving it to the rich and powerful in the name of God. That is why Christianity could not be stopped in the early going.

So what the Roman state authority did was co-opt it instead of trying to suppress it. They made it a state monopoly religion and used it to control the people. That is meant in the most literal sense because every single person had to register in a Church Parish, and the religion became the law.

In the context of this actual history, the idea about who would "die for a lie" is not even a relevant question.

This whole idea of "original sin" was manipulative guilt-trip crap to convince the people they had to give their animals, first fruits, and money to the authorities. There was no Adam and Eve, and no original sin. But instead of removing the original stupid story, we invent a new one. It is a sacrifice that ends all sacrifices, so we can just stay at home eating what we produce instead of giving it to someone richer than us.

Well of course, by the authorities taking over Christianity you got everyone back in a big centrally-controlled church, and the obligation to tithe. The tradition of a big meal eaten together in someone's home was replaced with a wafer and an ounce of grape juice. The first Christians deserve some respect for standing up to authority and telling them to kiss off, we're not giving you a thing.

this is THE post!

 

[Susheel]

Thanks ABP. Very interesting. Inspires me to go and reread all the material I have collected on early Christianity
.

 

[Craig B]

Dude

Apparently there was a chain of people who had contact with Jesus (and subsequently a chain that had contact with at least 2 of his disciples who cooberated the resurrection). Apparently there is a whole "who would die for a lie" argument that gets kicked around a lot.

Could you give me any information you have on this chain?

People do die for lies. Joseph Smith founded the Mormon religion as a swindle, but he died as a martyr for it too.

The expression "apostolic fathers" doesn't usually refer to Jesus' immediate followers (if he existed and had any) but to later Christian writers including Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna, all late 1st - early 2nd cent. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers.

The earliest Christian whose writing we have - Paul of Tarsus - never met Jesus in the flesh, and encountered him only through "revelations" or, more likely, hallucinations.

 

[Susheel]

People do die for lies. Joseph Smith founded the Mormon religion as a swindle, but he died as a martyr for it too.

I doubt he did it voluntarily though. However, there are instances of people who are willing to give up their lives for a lie...the Jim Jones Crowd, Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidians, Islamic fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists and perhaps some historical martyrs.

I guess a lot of the martyrs where declared so after the fact (being in the wrong place at the wrong time and assimilated into the myth), or actually went kicking and screaming but this was later airbrushed over. "Brave Sir Robin ran away" somehow does not have the right ring does it.

 

[Ethnikos]

Well of course, by the authorities taking over Christianity you got everyone back in a big centrally-controlled church, and the obligation to tithe. The tradition of a big meal eaten together in someone's home was replaced with a wafer and an ounce of grape juice. The first Christians deserve some respect for standing up to authority and telling them to kiss off, we're not giving you a thing. But within a few centuries, it was just a state machine milking the duped masses.

You could have a bunch of Americans who say, "We refuse to feed the beast so from now on, we will trade amongst ourselves using Ron Paul silver dollars and no federal reserve notes."
Three hundred years later you find the worshippers of Ron Paul, after the feds infiltrated and took it from how to avoid banks and taxes, to worshiping the man on the coins, and the followers of Ron Paul are banking with federal reserve notes, not realizing how the point of the movement was totally lost.

 

[Aepervius]

"who would die for a lie"

Yeah. Right. So there is a UFO which got the people at heaven's gate ? Or those solar sect guy ? Or are there really 72 virgins for me if I die in the name of Allah ? And i pass many others.

The question is not "who would die for a lie" but "who would not die for a crafted lie about getting immortality" : apparentely some people would do die for a well crafted lie.

 

[Craig B]

Susheel

I agree regarding Joseph Smith. But to be a martyr by definition, is it necessary to intend and desire your own death? That seems to be the modern definition, but I think a person who is killed for a religion or principle is a martyr, even if he or she hoped to remain alive.

The "I want to die, throw me to the lions" form of martyrdom appears to have been introduced indeed by an Apostolic Father - Ignatius of Antioch - and it has been criticised as a perversion of martyrdom, "witness", by other Christians.

See http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/ignatius.html .