Dying For A Lie, part 94

Posted on by

Over on Gary Marston’s Escaping Christian Fundamentalism, he has been arguing, along with some of you, about the resurrection with Joel Edmund Anderson, self-professed expert on all things Biblical. Joel – he has a PhD in Biblical Studies, don’t you know – has twice said in the discussion that the disciples would not have died for a lie, meaning they wouldn’t have let themselves be martyred if they hadn’t really seen Jesus alive again in the flesh.

I’ve addressed the assertion that they wouldn’t have died for a lie several times already on this blog: here, here and here for example, though some of my thinking about the Jesus phenomenon has changed since then. Nonetheless, I added my penny’s worth to Gary’s discussion (it’s difficult to get involved in real time because of the time differences between the US and UK):

And there it is again: ‘they wouldn’t suffer death and persecution for what they knew to be a lie.’

While you (Joel) mention the execution of James there is no evidence even in your hallowed text that this was because he believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

The later legends of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul are just that: legends. (And Paul wasn’t even a disciple! Moreover, he is clear in Galatians that his experience of the risen Jesus was ‘in’ his head.) There is no evidence, none at all, for your claim that ‘the disciples’ (all of them?) died or were even persecuted because of their belief in a bodily resurrection.

If some were put to death, it could equally have been because of their abandonment of conventional Jewish beliefs; their provocation of religious authorities (there’s plenty evidence of this in the gospels); their replacement of emperor worship with a deified itinerant preacher or for political reasons. We simply do not know.

That said, there are zealots today prepared to die for lies (think 9/11, Islamist terrorists) so there is no reason to think it didn’t also happen 2,000 years ago.

This line of argument, as ‘proof’ of the resurrection is exceedingly weak, Joel, yet it appears to be all you’ve got.

Joel did not respond. I feel sure he will make the claim again at some point in the future because it’s what he, like many other Christians, want to believe, which is really what ‘faith’ is all about.

56 thoughts on “Dying For A Lie, part 94”

  2. I’m increasingly of the opinion that the 12 disciples of the gospels are literary inventions. They are like Dr Who companions — they exist to not get what Jesus is saying so Jesus can explain it to the audience by explaining it to the disciples.

    If Roman officials followed standard practice (and when didn’t they?), all of Jesus’ disciples would have been rounded up and crucified with him. There would be no disciples left to later “die for his lies.”

    “Christianity” then got started by the second string disciples who stayed in Galilee and didn’t go to Jerusalem with Jesus and the main crew. Still later, the resurrection was invented by Paul and his hallucination-prone mind.

    By the time Christians started dying for their beliefs, none of them had ever met Jesus or any of his disciples or ever even been to the Holy Land.

    It’s all 99.9999% pure fiction.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

    • Love the Doctor Who analogy. I think the disciples are also there to represent those dumb Jews who couldn’t or wouldn’t see the (supposed) truth about the heavenly Messiah.

      The gospels are, as you say 99.999% fiction. The other tiny fraction isn’t worth considering.

      Whatever the original cult members thought they’d seen in terms of a risen savior, they were eliminated in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. Not because they were ‘Christians’ but simply because they were there.

      Unfortunately, Paul and others had, by then, already spread their version of the superstition much further afield.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply ↓

  3. I see no way around a universal creator/supervisor (whom I’ll call “God”). Therefore, I DO want to believe because I want to KNOW this God. So, I live so, I live towards God.

    Like

    Reply ↓

      • You did? I must’ve missed it. What does ‘living towards God’ mean? How close have you got? How much further do you have to go? How do you know?
        You see how little of this makes any sense.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It means letting him audit all my files; exposing my thoughts, intentions etc to him. If Jesus really said and meant, ‘ the kingdom of God is in/among you,’ THAT close.
        I’m there, here and now. And I DON’T know, I’m living a hunch, as if God sees it all.

        Like

      • Arnold: “It means letting him audit all my files; exposing my thoughts, intentions etc to him.”

        I’m going to assume your imaginary friend never shows up for these audits. You’re just having a little schizophrenic dialog with yourself.

        Other than that, self-examination is always a useful tool in correcting past behavior and growing as an individual. But it doesn’t require an imaginary friend. Billions of people do it all the time without the need for a fantasy auditor. Take responsibility for yourself, your thoughts, and your actions.

        Arnold: “If Jesus really said and meant, ‘ the kingdom of God is in/among you,’ THAT close.”

        If Jesus said that, he was speaking of the messianic kingdom which never came and was never established. Jesus was wrong about nearly everything. He was a false prophet and a failed messiah.

        Arnold: “I’m there, here and now.”

        I have no idea what you mean by this.

        Arnold: “And I DON’T know, I’m living a hunch, as if God sees it all.”

        Well you’re right, you don’t know. Living a hunch about a false prophet being a real prophet and failed messiah being a real messiah is irrational and a bit delusional.

        If “God sees it all” why do you have to “expose” your “thoughts, intentions etc to him”? It’s as if you realize that God does not see all. But, in your delusion, you think if you “expose” these things to him he will finally see them.

        What little you’ve revealed about your beliefs is contradictory. But that’s to be expected of any belief based on Bible God.

        Ditch the imaginary friend and find one in the real world. Maybe bake some cookies together or something.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I sort of think the messianic kingdom arrived 2 centuries ago, via the spirit of Jesus. If so, ‘I’m there, here and now’ is a bit of a play on words.
        And since I’m not a fan of the so-called prophecies of fundamental beliefs I’m not too concerned with expected contradictions and the like.

        Like

      • Arnold: I sort of think the messianic kingdom arrived 2 centuries [millennia] ago, via the spirit of Jesus. If so, ‘I’m there, here and now’ is a bit of a play on words. And since I’m not a fan of the so-called prophecies of fundamental beliefs I’m not too concerned with expected contradictions and the like.

        Okay. It’s the last (bolded) bit that’s interesting. You’re “not a fan” of the so-called prophecies. So you don’t care about the messianic prophecies. But you think Jesus was the messiah? The messiah that wasn’t prophesied?

        As I read the first part — about the messianic kingdom arriving 2000 years ago I had a long list of questions forming. But after reading the bolded bits, I only have one: You believe in a “messianic kingdom” that was never prophesied. It’s good you’re not bothered by contradictions then.

        I was worried about your delusion of an imaginary friend. Seems you may or may not believe in an entire imaginary kingdom being run out of Jerusalem with an imaginary Jesus as an imaginary king and the whole world worshipping at an imaginary 3rd temple where imaginary Levite priests perform sacrifices day and night under the Mosaic law.

        Well, Arnold. You’ve beaten every Christian I’ve ever met (online or in real life) for delusions. Congratulations?

        Like

      • See how you changed “not a fan” into “never prophesied”? That’s why I don’t trust Bible predictions: crafty writers adjust stuff after the fact, and/or to fit their spin.

        And so I’m wholly interested in the reported claims of this Jesus of Nazareth. Mythicist evangelists are doing their best to dislodge him from history, yet there’s way too much data scattered from the early second century on, and continuing, exhaustive research over the last 2000 years. For me, his Spirit, his kingdom is in/among me.

        Maybe the prophecies ARE true, yet it’s the claims of God-with-us being crucified and the stir it created that captures and convinces and anchors me to this Jesus, and to play out this hunch. And until this spirit departs, I’m all in.

        Like

      • How much substantiated data is there from the first century about the Instant Viticulturist when he was striding around Galilee, pissing off authorities, undermining Pharisees and wotnot, walking over Lake Tiberius, altering the weather, ruining the livelihood of at least one pig farmer, feeding multitudes, curing lepers, blind people, and those suffering from dandruff?

        How many direct references non-biblical hints, or even allusions, are there for this Jesus of Nazareth.

        In fact where was Nazareth if it even existed during Jesus time?

        And was it really a city, or a hamlet or village or merely a couple of scruffy huts?

        Baggatti found nothing. Ken Dark scratched around a few Kok tombs.

        How many writers, philosophers, historians, dedicated god-botherers so much as scrawled a note to themselves. *Yeshua Ben Joseph. One to watch.

        From my limited amateur perusing I would have to say absolutely fark all.

        But you, as a dedicated follower of fashion… I mean Jesus ( sorry, was listening to the Kinks) you must surely be aware of at least something?

        Please dazzle us.

        Like

      • No, thanks Ark, I’m past that. My interest is in living and loving towards God and others. Besides, I can’t dazzle you with evidence or apologetics bs. And so I’m living out a hunch, albeit a safe hunch, I think.

        Like

      • To me, the question is … if YOU are living out a hunch, that’s well and good. But why must you repeatedly urge others to follow your hunch?

        Hunch: An impression that something might be the case.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Actually, that’s not true- opinions are subjective. When someone makes a point I counter (repeatedly?) it with my own opinion.

        Like

      • Remember when I said you(have a penchant to) obfuscate?

        You are doing it again.

        Explain what you mean by “life is evidence of something beyond me”

        Like

      • My comment was primarily related to semantics … but based on your response, I disagree. The simple fact that you continue to visit and comment on atheist and non-believer’s blogs related to YOUR faith is nothing less than “urging” others to follow in kind. You may not see it that way, but to atheists, it’s more than obvious.

        Liked by 2 people

      • You’re welcome to engage but you have to accept there will be push back, particularly when you’re touting your own idiosyncratic form of faith. I don’t see anyone urging you to drop your beliefs but rather to recognise how subjective and lacking in evidence they are. What you do with that is entirely up to you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • On what basis do you consider the sparse 2nd century references/data – Tacitus perhaps- are valid yet you cannot offer a single piece of historical or archaeological data from a single confirmed independant 1st century source?

        Like

      • Arnold: See how you changed “not a fan” into “never prophesied”?

        Wow. Okay. Let’s rewind a bit. What you sed originally:

        Arnold: I’m not a fan of the so-called prophecies of fundamental beliefs. . .

        To which I replied:

        Kos: You’re “not a fan” of the so-called prophecies. So you don’t care about the messianic prophecies. But you think Jesus was the messiah? The messiah that wasn’t prophesied?

        Which you twisted to:

        Arnold: See how you changed “not a fan” into “never prophesied”?

        No, Arnold, I didn’t change “not a fan” into “never prophesied”. I was leaning more on “so-called prophecies” because “not a fan” was ambiguous while “so-called” is straight forward. So-called friend. So-called natural remedy. So-called man of God. So-called is always used to say that something isn’t what it’s claimed to be.

        You said “so-called prophecies” – stating clearly that you don’t believe the prophecies to be prophecies. Which clearly contradicts your belief in a messianic kingdom – something predicted by the prophecies you just said aren’t prophecies.

        So. You’re beliefs are contradictory. Which you’ve already said you’re okay with. So, moving on. . .

        Arnold: That’s why I don’t trust Bible predictions: crafty writers adjust stuff after the fact, and/or to fit their spin.

        Which contradicts what you said about Jesus:

        Arnold: And so I’m wholly interested in the reported claims of this Jesus of Nazareth.

        Hate to break it to you, Arnold, but the “reported claims of this Jesus” are written by “crafty writers [who] adjust stuff after the fact, and/or to fit their spin.” You just said “I don’t trust Bible predictions.” Shouldn’t that apply to postdictions as well?

        We don’t have the account of a single eye-witness to the life or supposed (so-called?) resurrection of Jesus. Not one. The gospels we have are written decades later by non-eyewitnesses who scoured those prophecies you don’t trust to write a fictive life of Jesus that they thought the prophecies predicted.

        You’re up to your eyeballs in contradictions. But since you’re okay with that, your “hunch” is your bestest imaginary bud is the creator of the universe and gives you the warm fuzzies all over.

        We’re done.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You’re 100% right. I’m indoctrinated to the point of blowing off non-evidence, because I know the texts are corrupted. Thanks for your thorough argument.

        Like

    • And obviously this “universal creator/supervisor” was a 1st century Palestinian failed carpenter turned failed apocalyptic prophet turned failed messiah.

      It’s all so obvious that it’s difficult to understand why less than 30% of the world’s population believes in this particular “god.”

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • Perhaps those <30% see success in failure, from learning by experience, and from God-with-us sharing the experience. To me, it's a longshot worth taking.

        Like

      • Looking for “success in failure” is an odd approach. But if you’re looking for a failure, the god of the Bible is a good choice.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “To me, it’s a longshot worth taking.”

        Yes, but you’re indoctrinated and coming from a place that is fraught with trauma every which way.

        This inevitably clouds your judgment and you refuse to engage anything resembling even BASIC critical thinking.

        Furthermore, for some truly bizarre reason you continue to parade your passive /aggressive pseudo martyrdom across atheist blogs.

        In fact, I have yet to see you pop up on a single designated blog/site hosted by a Christian.

        If you do frequent any please let me know.

        And just what exactly do you hope to get with this “longshot” ?

        Like

      • Christian blogs traumatize me so I engage atheists because you think critically.

        I get to share my life with God, face to face, side by side.

        Like

      • So you are an indoctrinated Christian, but Christians traumatize you.

        So instead of hanging out with your fellow indoctrinated delusional dingbats you elect to engage with atheists because we think critically, yet you completely reject critical thinking in favour of a dumbfu*k religious belief championed by people who are adept at the same dumbfu*kwittery as you yet they traumatize you.

        Do you also wear your underpants on your head by any chance?

        Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t reckon you have ever offered a straightforward commonsense reply to any question I have asked.

        To date I have not encountered an internet Christian able to be honest and have even a halfway intelligent conversation.

        Every one is, at heart, a liar

        You manage to incorporate dumfu*kwittery with disingenuity.

        You should probably see a mental health professional. And I know I have said this before but, for the gods’ sake, stay away from children.

        In fact you come across as more than a little creepy and should probably be on some sort of community watch list.

        Again, see a professional.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That may be happening because I’m trying to explain a “one God” construct. (It’s probably over our heads.) I understand what’s going on internally yet can’t seem to explain it coherently.

        Like

      • You have said you engage atheist because we excerise critical thinking yet you reject critical thinking in favour of faith.

        Therefore, why do you engage those who exercise critical thinking when you eschew it?

        Liked by 1 person

      • I combine my intuition (hunch) that God exists, while whittling down the absurdities of the Bible by thinking critically.

        Like

      • Arnold said:

        “I get to share my life with God, face to face, side by side.”

        Aren’t you too old to have an imaginary friend? Unless you’re like, 4 or 5.

        Time to stab it in the imaginary face with an imaginary fork and move on.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.