Assuming Jesus wasn't who he said he was, what's in it for them? They weren't going to get rich or gain anything from this new religion?
Why were early Christians willing to risk persecution?
34,728 Views |
742 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by PabloSerna
How much Christian persecution was there?
Nero blamed them for the fire, but you could say Christians did more persecuting on others than had done to them.
Christians persecuted the gnostics and marcianites not too mention the jews.
Nero blamed them for the fire, but you could say Christians did more persecuting on others than had done to them.
Christians persecuted the gnostics and marcianites not too mention the jews.
Poke_the_Bear said:
Nero blamed them for the fire, but you could say Christians did more persecuting on others than had done to them.
Christians persecuted the gnostics and marcianites not too mention the jews.
You could say that, but you'd be saying something kinda dumb.
Poke_the_Bear said:
How much Christian persecution was there?
Nero blamed them for the fire, but you could say Christians did more persecuting on others than had done to them.
Christians persecuted the gnostics and marcianites not too mention the jews.
Username checks out
St. Thomas made it to India and China in the Catholic / Orthodox tradition (Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich had visions, for example).
St. John survived being burned in oil.
St. Paul and St. Peter crucified at Vatican Hill (I personally believe they have St. Peter's bone fragments).
On and on.
Why?
St. John survived being burned in oil.
St. Paul and St. Peter crucified at Vatican Hill (I personally believe they have St. Peter's bone fragments).
On and on.
Why?
I would assume because they believed what he was saying about the afterlife. It works for all kinds of religions.
Why limit the question to early Christians?
What did Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Buddha, Zoroaster, or anyone else on this list have to gain?
You could also ask about leaders that started political revolutions. They all faced the options of becoming famous leaders or a painful death. Some achieved both.
It might as simple as believing in something so much that you are willing to die for it. It doesn't necessarily mean that thing is true. Or maybe some of the people above were in it for money, fame, and women but everything got out of control and went south quickly.
What did Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Buddha, Zoroaster, or anyone else on this list have to gain?
You could also ask about leaders that started political revolutions. They all faced the options of becoming famous leaders or a painful death. Some achieved both.
It might as simple as believing in something so much that you are willing to die for it. It doesn't necessarily mean that thing is true. Or maybe some of the people above were in it for money, fame, and women but everything got out of control and went south quickly.
Honestly, I think the worst persecutor of all are the Jesuits.
Christianity is unique because it requires believing astounding historical claims of high importance - first among them the Resurrection.
Second, His 12 followers (including St. Stephen) were all pious Jews at a time when the definition of that word was changing, with very lethal consequences during this time of flux (April 33 to 67, start of the first Roman - Jewish War). After 70, these terms were very different - priesthood, Temple, Sacrifice.
To follow "the Way" was to be in grave physical danger in the Levant - even worse than Nero, IMO, because he was a "beast" (I'm a preterist) when he needed a scapegoat and wasn't distracted by his "art", terrible personal life, and the Parthian Empire, which he very frequently was.
Second, His 12 followers (including St. Stephen) were all pious Jews at a time when the definition of that word was changing, with very lethal consequences during this time of flux (April 33 to 67, start of the first Roman - Jewish War). After 70, these terms were very different - priesthood, Temple, Sacrifice.
To follow "the Way" was to be in grave physical danger in the Levant - even worse than Nero, IMO, because he was a "beast" (I'm a preterist) when he needed a scapegoat and wasn't distracted by his "art", terrible personal life, and the Parthian Empire, which he very frequently was.
What other religion required multiple people to lie about an event they claimed they eye witnessed in order to go to their death?Beer Baron said:
I would assume because they believed what he was saying about the afterlife. It works for all kinds of religions.
Mormonism
Joseph Smith died in a mob attack. He tried to defend himself and shot 3 men.swimmerbabe11 said:
Mormonism
Mormons were aggressive settlers (upstate NY, around the Midwest, including a supposed "New Jerusalem" in Missouri territory, and then a splinter group to Utah territory) who were both persecuted and engaged in plenty of persecution. Quite a bit of the heat they drew was a direct consequence of their own actions - including some very angry fathers of young women.
Yeah, definitely not innocent..but people claimed to witness Smith's miracles and got violent for their troubles.
Lots of cult leaders led people to their deaths.
Lots of cult leaders led people to their deaths.
swimmerbabe11 said:
Yeah, definitely not innocent..but people claimed to witness Smith's miracles and got violent for their troubles.
Lots of cult leaders led people to their deaths.
But they didn't know they were following a lie. Some of the early Christians would have lied for their own death. Why would they do that? They didn't believe it was true. They knew for a fact that it was a lie.
Huh? Who would have lied in order to become a martyr?Quote:
Some of the early Christians would have lied for their own death.
He's saying if Christianity were false, then a person like Peter would have gone to his death for a known lie. This is different than a cult follower who goes to their death for a supposed truth (even though it's a lie).PacifistAg said:Huh? Who would have lied in order to become a martyr?Quote:
Some of the early Christians would have lied for their own death.
Depends on which early Christians you are referring to. The apostles were hiding in fear of their lives when Jesus was being crucified. What changed? They saw him alive after he was dead. Them and about 500 others died witnessing the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.Quote:
Why were early Christians willing to risk persecution? Assuming Jesus wasn't who he said he was, what's in it for them? They weren't going to get rich or gain anything from this new religion?
Others died convinced that Jesus was who He said he was and they were convinced that he rose from the dead. If Jesus wasn't who He said He was and then they all suffered in vain.
Has anyone ever heard a good argument to refute this?
Maybe that the resurrection was just a magic trick?
Maybe that the resurrection was just a magic trick?
There are quite a few theories that attempt to refute this however they all fall short of the evidence. The problem is, that Jesus life, miracles, death, and resurrection were all public.
Would a magic trick convince a Muslim extremist who actively participates in the hunting down and killing Christians to change his mind? That's what we have with the life of Paul. A Jewish extremest who would hunt down and kill Christians, goes to his death with 1 message on his lips. Jesus whom I hated and persecuted his people, I saw alive. He is Lord and for me to live is Christ.
Jesus lived with the disciples for 3 years, they knew he was brutally crucified and died. They saw Him alive. They didn't die for their faith but for what they saw.
Would a magic trick convince a Muslim extremist who actively participates in the hunting down and killing Christians to change his mind? That's what we have with the life of Paul. A Jewish extremest who would hunt down and kill Christians, goes to his death with 1 message on his lips. Jesus whom I hated and persecuted his people, I saw alive. He is Lord and for me to live is Christ.
Jesus lived with the disciples for 3 years, they knew he was brutally crucified and died. They saw Him alive. They didn't die for their faith but for what they saw.
There is a tremendous difference between dying for what you believe in and dying for what you know to be a lie.
If the Apostles fabricated stories of Jesus to create a false religion, then they knowingly went to their deaths for a lie. There is zero evidence any of them renounced their faith.
Nobody does that.
If the Apostles fabricated stories of Jesus to create a false religion, then they knowingly went to their deaths for a lie. There is zero evidence any of them renounced their faith.
Nobody does that.
Let me add my personal opinion about Islam:
- Mohammed didn't exist.
- The Koran is an "Arabian nationalist" document that evolved over centuries as the tribal efforts to unite against the Turks waxed and waned.
- "Early Islam" was Christian, increasingly heterodox over its first century.
SOURCE
"The Hidden Origins of Islam" - an academic book first published in German.
Published in English by Prometheus Books.
- Mohammed didn't exist.
- The Koran is an "Arabian nationalist" document that evolved over centuries as the tribal efforts to unite against the Turks waxed and waned.
- "Early Islam" was Christian, increasingly heterodox over its first century.
SOURCE
"The Hidden Origins of Islam" - an academic book first published in German.
Published in English by Prometheus Books.
Let me add my personal opinion about Judaism:
- This very large and diverse umbrella term shares one unifying characteristic: the Messianic claim of Jesus the Nazarene is wrong.
- After 70 AD, when Titus decimated the Temple, faith and practices had to be radically reconstructed: meaning of temple, ark, priesthood, Sacrifice. (For Catholics / Orthodox = body, St. Mary, Apostolic priesthood, Mass).
- This very large and diverse umbrella term shares one unifying characteristic: the Messianic claim of Jesus the Nazarene is wrong.
- After 70 AD, when Titus decimated the Temple, faith and practices had to be radically reconstructed: meaning of temple, ark, priesthood, Sacrifice. (For Catholics / Orthodox = body, St. Mary, Apostolic priesthood, Mass).
Relevant why?
These are the 3 religions of the Levant. This is our Western religious heritage (paganism cannot be defined without ethnic specificity).
Christianity is unique.
It makes striking historical claims.
True, or no?
These are the 3 religions of the Levant. This is our Western religious heritage (paganism cannot be defined without ethnic specificity).
Christianity is unique.
It makes striking historical claims.
True, or no?
The Christian persecution narrative appears quite oversold, with many of the tales for the lesser known apostles being almost certainly false.
Ostensibly these apostles should have had prominent roles in the early church with recorded histories, we don't see this. Such a martyrdom would have likely been recorded in some detail in the New Testament (they are not, only the death of James is noted and it doesn't even go into detail there), rather they appear a hundred years and more later. Conversely the church fathers who followed those hundreds of years later have well attested records and considerable writings to their name.
That said even assuming any of these deaths are more than Pious fiction, it's little different than what you see in other circumstances with people who are very close to other cult leaders or religious founders. Often, when defining what a martyr is to argue the point Christians are making we need to look at a situation where people were given an option to recant and save their lives, not merely killed for belonging to a group.
Overall I find this line of reasoning pretty weak.
Ostensibly these apostles should have had prominent roles in the early church with recorded histories, we don't see this. Such a martyrdom would have likely been recorded in some detail in the New Testament (they are not, only the death of James is noted and it doesn't even go into detail there), rather they appear a hundred years and more later. Conversely the church fathers who followed those hundreds of years later have well attested records and considerable writings to their name.
That said even assuming any of these deaths are more than Pious fiction, it's little different than what you see in other circumstances with people who are very close to other cult leaders or religious founders. Often, when defining what a martyr is to argue the point Christians are making we need to look at a situation where people were given an option to recant and save their lives, not merely killed for belonging to a group.
Overall I find this line of reasoning pretty weak.
Well how else can you silence flat earth truthers?PacifistAg said:
Honestly, I think the worst persecutor of all are the Jesuits.
I would say no one expects the Jesuit inquisition..but that's not entirely accurate, now is it?
Redstone said:
Let me add my personal opinion about Islam:
- Mohammed didn't exist.
- The Koran is an "Arabian nationalist" document that evolved over centuries as the tribal efforts to unite against the Turks waxed and waned.
- "Early Islam" was Christian, increasingly heterodox over its first century.
SOURCE
"The Hidden Origins of Islam" - an academic book first published in German.
Published in English by Prometheus Books.
Are you serious? Is this in the same section of books that speaks of the still unknown mysterious noble barbarian farmer race the German people descended from? Some 18th/19th century bull**** the Germans wrote to feel good about themselves.
The Romans/Byzantine acknowledged his existence while he was alive. There is plenty of evidence he was real.
The Koran was established well before Turkish domination
The Romans thought Mohammad was a Jew. One of, if not his top, generals was a Jew.
Yes, I believe the Koran is a handy little book that fits its purpose.
I think the world would be better off without him but no doubting he was real.
I imagine you see what you want to the way you want to.
Ignacius knew Peter and Paul personally. He spoke/wrote of their deaths and was marched to Rome and fed to live beasts for nothing more than being a Christian Bishop.
The empire dedicated 12 soldiers to escort him all the way to Rome to make a show of it. They could have just killed him there in Antioch. There was enough of a frenzy it was worth bringing him all the way to Rome at considerable expense. Yeah, definitely overblown....
Ignacius knew Peter and Paul personally. He spoke/wrote of their deaths and was marched to Rome and fed to live beasts for nothing more than being a Christian Bishop.
The empire dedicated 12 soldiers to escort him all the way to Rome to make a show of it. They could have just killed him there in Antioch. There was enough of a frenzy it was worth bringing him all the way to Rome at considerable expense. Yeah, definitely overblown....
It's funny how people think 100 years is a long time..but I know lots of things about my grandparent's childhood.
CrackerJackAg said:
I imagine you see what you want to the way you want to.
Ignacius knew Peter and Paul personally. He spoke/wrote of their deaths and was marched to Rome and fed to live beasts for nothing more than being a Christian Bishop.
The empire dedicated 12 soldiers to escort him all the way to Rome to make a show of it. They could have just killed him there in Antioch. There was enough of a frenzy it was worth bringing him all the way to Rome at considerable expense. Yeah, definitely overblown....
There is no evidence he knew Paul, his suspected birth wasnt until 50 AD. And if he died by lions is also suspect.
Yes, very serious. The book is recent and its foundation are the near-total lack of primacy sources for over 200 years from its stated founding, and most important the surviving physical evidence :
for example, Arian Christian symbolism all over Arabia.
This is a very respectable academic opinion, centered in Germany and France. It has been since the 1970s. For a popular overview of this academic line of thought, see The Atlantic, What is the Koran?
edit
If the Quran is an Arabic translation of an original Syriac/Aramaic text - very very possible - then what was the context?
A Syriac Christian lectionary. A liturgical book with selected texts from the Scriptures.
The earliest biographical information about Mohammed comes from texts written fully two centuries after Mohammeds life and death. Very much related: Arabic Christians placed the beginning of their "era" at ... 622, when they gained independence from Persia / Anatolia alliances.
The scholarship is formidable. My opinions here will be mainstream, possibly in less than a century, IMO. German and French scholars of Islam are not afraid.
for example, Arian Christian symbolism all over Arabia.
This is a very respectable academic opinion, centered in Germany and France. It has been since the 1970s. For a popular overview of this academic line of thought, see The Atlantic, What is the Koran?
edit
If the Quran is an Arabic translation of an original Syriac/Aramaic text - very very possible - then what was the context?
A Syriac Christian lectionary. A liturgical book with selected texts from the Scriptures.
The earliest biographical information about Mohammed comes from texts written fully two centuries after Mohammeds life and death. Very much related: Arabic Christians placed the beginning of their "era" at ... 622, when they gained independence from Persia / Anatolia alliances.
The scholarship is formidable. My opinions here will be mainstream, possibly in less than a century, IMO. German and French scholars of Islam are not afraid.
Also, the Yamnaya invasions - far to the east AND far to the west from Pontus - were very real according to about 3 decades of DNA studies (start with David Reich's book from last year).
And yes the NSDAP homicidal mysticism about it was evil and absurd.
And yes the NSDAP homicidal mysticism about it was evil and absurd.
The 3rd option is dying for what you know to be true because you saw Him resurrected.Quote:
There is a tremendous difference between dying for what you believe in and dying for what you know to be a lie.
Paul renounced his faith that Jesus was guilty of blashphemy to Jesus is the promised Messiah and Lord. He killed for his previous beliefs, and died as an eye witness to the resurrection and wrote approx. 2, 3rds of the NT.Quote:
If the Apostles fabricated stories of Jesus to create a false religion, then they knowingly went to their deaths for a lie. There is zero evidence any of them renounced their faith.
Nobody does that.
As far a fabricating the stories: They had zero motivation, noting to gain, included embarrassing details about themselves. The tomb was empty. One does not hide while their leader is crucified, steal a dead body, and then tell everyone he's alive. You are right, they did not die for a lie. Their transformation from cowards to Martyr's are all consistent with truth claims.
Quote:
Ostensibly these apostles should have had prominent roles in the early church with recorded histories, we don't see this.
Where does this assumption come from? Jesus directly appointed them to go. They were not static church leaders but church planters and missionaries. Luke records this in detail. If you read the books of 1 and 2 Timothy you see that Paul is instructing Timothy to "entrust these things to reliable men who are able to teaches others"
It's just the opposite. If I write a book and detail the temple, the death of Jesus, the death of Herod, the death of Stephen, the ministry of Paul and Peter, the best conclusion is that those books were written before the destruction of the temple and the death of Paul. If the writer mentions the death of James the brother of John who died in 44 a.d. in which nothing else is written about him, why not mention the death of Barnabus, Paul, James the apostle, etcQuote:
Such a martyrdom would have likely been recorded in some detail in the New Testament (they are not, only the death of James is noted and it doesn't even go into detail there), rather they appear a hundred years and more later.
The 100 years later argument is extremely old and has been debunked. There gospels and NT were already in already in circulation, being used as authoritative in the early church.
Ignatius of Antioch (born ? -- died (apparently martyred) ~110 CE in Rome) - Quoted
- Gospel according to Matthew
- Gospel according to Luke
- Acts
- Romans
- I Corinthians
- Ephesians
- Colossians
- I Thessalonians
Polycarp of Smyrna (born ~70 -- died (martyred) ~155 in Rome) - quoted
- Gospel according to Matthew
- Gospel according to Mark
- Gospel according to Luke
- Acts
- I Corinthians
- II Corinthians
- Galatians
- Ephesians
- Philippians
- I Thessalonians
- II Thessalonians
- I Timothy
- II Timothy
- Hebrews
- I Peter
- I John
- III John
Good Poster
Pitt LB Solomon DeShields Visiting Texas A&M This Weekend
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
37