Would men die for something they did not believe?

[4troof]

Originally Posted by Cacafire

They were fooled.

...
...
Get over it.

Wow, all twelve?
Were the Jews that could not produce a body to shut them up fooled too?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by 4troof

But, my original question was why would all of the apostles (including Paul- an ex Pharasee) go to their gruesome deaths saying they saw a resurrected Jesus?

Paul's a bit of a special case, isn't he? Never meeting Jesus in the flesh, his belief was based on an apparition (hallucination?) that appeared before him but was invisible to the people he was with.

Originally Posted by 4troof

I hope you would not respond by saying there is no proof of who wrote the New Testement. There are more manuscripts of this book around the earth that are within 100 years of the original writings, that you cannot debate that seriously.

Actually, I'm thinking more that there is positive evidence (i.e. not just conclusions drawn from the absence of evidence) that indicates a source for the New Testament other than literal events in first-century Judea.

To say that the Gospel is a literal history of a man named Jesus who lived, died and was resurrected in Judea 2000 years ago is to say that the seemingly strong links between the New Testament and other, earlier religious beliefs* are nothing more than odd coincidences.

*in particular, I'm thinking of Egyptian mythology that depicts the god Horus (son of the chief God, Osiris) as:

- descending to Earth to live in human form
- having twelve human apostles, including fishermen
- bringing Al-Asar (pretty close to "Lazarus", don't you think?) back from the dead before Mary and Martha
- ascending to Heaven, where he is seated at the right hand of his father and will judge the living and the dead

Also, there's what I see as hints of Dharmic beliefs in the New Testament as well:

- the sudden change from Jewish monotheism to something to a triune godhead very similar to the Trimurti
- an uncanny parallel between Christian and Dharmic beliefs, though with some modification. For example, the New Testament describes how we can be freed from the Old Law by the sacrifice and efforts of Christ, while Hindu scriptures describe how we can be freed from the Wheel of Life by personal sacrifice and effort.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by 4troof

Men die everyday for something they believe in.
Would they die for something they did not believe in?

How would a non christian explain why the apostles of Jesus died gruesome deaths saying they had seen Jesus killed and resurrected three days later?

They didn't. There is absolutely no historical evidence to suggest that any of the apostles died a martyr's death, there's at least one peice of historical evidence that Matthew (at least) died of natural causes (which disputes the various traditions of his martyrdom), the traditions in regards to the matyrdom of the various apostles are contradictory, and more-over the only apostle that the bible itself claims died as a martyr is James.

The traditional martydom of the apostles is Christian folklore and as I've said, depending on which regional tradition you want to look at, the traditions contradict each other.

[Engyo]

Originally Posted by 4troof

Men die everyday for something they believe in.
Would they die for something they did not believe in?

How would a non christian explain why the apostles of Jesus died gruesome deaths saying they had seen Jesus killed and resurrected three days later?

I know lots of soldiers have died in wars they didn't believe in.

[4troof]

Actually, I'm thinking more that there is positive evidence (i.e. not just conclusions drawn from the absence of evidence) that indicates a source for the New Testament other than literal events in first-century Judea.

To say that the Gospel is a literal history of a man named Jesus who lived, died and was resurrected in Judea 2000 years ago is to say that the seemingly strong links between the New Testament and other, earlier religious beliefs* are nothing more than odd coincidences.

None of these earlier beliefs had men going to their deaths though saying they saw a resurrected man. Since we have enough ancient manuscripts written in different languages to piece together the original letters, and have been shown historically (from outside sources) that they were written before the destruction of the temple in AD70, how do you explain these guys going to their deaths saying they actually saw a resurrected man with their own eyes?

*in particular, I'm thinking of Egyptian mythology that depicts the god Horus (son of the chief God, Osiris) as:

- descending to Earth to live in human form
- having twelve human apostles, including fishermen
- bringing Al-Asar (pretty close to "Lazarus", don't you think?) back from the dead before Mary and Martha
- ascending to Heaven, where he is seated at the right hand of his father and will judge the living and the dead

Also, there's what I see as hints of Dharmic beliefs in the New Testament as well:

- the sudden change from Jewish monotheism to something to a triune godhead very similar to the Trimurti
- an uncanny parallel between Christian and Dharmic beliefs, though with some modification. For example, the New Testament describes how we can be freed from the Old Law by the sacrifice and efforts of Christ, while Hindu scriptures describe how we can be freed from the Wheel of Life by personal sacrifice and effort.[/quote]

[4troof]

Originally Posted by Engyo

I know lots of soldiers have died in wars they didn't believe in.

Really? And that compares to seeing a dead, and then resurrected man how?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by 4troof

None of these earlier beliefs had men going to their deaths though saying they saw a resurrected man.

I suppose not, but they do speak against the literal truth of what you're suggesting.

Originally Posted by 4troof

Since we have enough ancient manuscripts written in different languages to piece together the original letters, and have been shown historically (from outside sources) that they were written before the destruction of the temple in AD70, how do you explain these guys going to their deaths saying they actually saw a resurrected man with their own eyes?

Who do you think went to their deaths for this, and under what circumstances?

The only one I'm familiar with from the Bible is Paul, and hopefully you'll agree that the Bible never mentions him seeing or meeting Jesus before his death. If we accept the Biblical account as true, then what he saw has all the earmarks of a hallucination. If we don't take the Biblical account as true, then, well, what's the point of debating what the implications of its truth might be?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by 4troof

Really? And that compares to seeing a dead, and then resurrected man how?

How the two things compare depends on your point of view, I suppose, but his post does directly answer your original question:

Originally Posted by 4troof

Men die everyday for something they believe in.
Would they die for something they did not believe in?

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by 4troof

Actually, I'm thinking more that there is positive evidence (i.e. not just conclusions drawn from the absence of evidence) that indicates a source for the New Testament other than literal events in first-century Judea.

Again; there's nothing in the New Testament that suggests any of the apostles died a martyr's death except James. Discussing the validity of the NT is a moot point for sakes of this topic.

Presenting contradictory accounts as evidence of fabrication is not the same as drawing conclusions from lack of evidence (nor is it even close).

Originally Posted by 4tfoof

To say that the Gospel is a literal history of a man named Jesus who lived, died and was resurrected in Judea 2000 years ago is to say that the seemingly strong links between the New T