Would They Die for a Lie?

[The Grand Nudger]

I can't help but giggle at transactional faiths. "Hey...uh....do this thing for me, and I'll totally pay you, you know..tomorrow..or maybe the next day, you know..some day."

Seems like everyone's favorite divine debtor is constantly late on his payments.....I don't know why people still lend him anything.

[Drich]

I can't help but giggle at transactional faiths.  "Hey...uh....do this thing for me, and I'll totally pay you, you know..tomorrow..or maybe the next day, you know..some day."

Seems like everyone's favorite divine debtor is constantly late on his payments.....I don't know why people still lend him anything.

show me an active one that isn't. show me one where the believer doesn't get anything for service and worship

[Jehanne]

Drich,

No one is claiming that the Romans practiced 21st-centry Western religious tolerance; rather, what modern scholars are claiming is that, 1) The Roman persecution of the early Christian communities was episodic and not widespread, 2) the persecutions were more for political reasons and not religious, and 3) of those Christians who were persecuted, just as many recanted and lived as those whom the Empire executed.  And, finally, #4, the early Christian communities embellished and exaggerated the extent of the Roman persecutions.

Dawn

[Drich]

that said mat 10 is not talking about facing execution if you keep reading Jesus lists out the people he expects you to stand up and represent his to more or less friends family anyone who would ask who's lve you would put before God. He in this statement wants you to know God is to come first even before the love you give to your parents.

[Jehanne]

that said mat 10 is not talking about facing execution if you keep reading Jesus lists out the people he expects you to stand up and represent his to more or less friends family anyone who would ask who's lve you would put before God. He in this statement wants you to know God is to come first even before the love you give to your parents.

What did thousands recant their faith in Jesus rather than face execution by the Romans?

[The Grand Nudger]

That you can't imagine a faith being anything other than transactional is a you problem, nothing to do with the existence of other types of faiths.  In any case, this "jesus" guy expects a whole lot of silly shit, huh?  That's some awfully expensive cake, if you ask me.

[Vicki Q]

I have no idea why you would refer to Dr. Carrier as being "ilk".  He is an independent scholar who has his opinions about things, but his academic credentials are foundational in the areas in which he does his research, even though his views are outside of mainstream scholarship.

By the way, the reference above is to an undergraduate textbook in New Testament criticism and not one of Dr. Ehrman's popular books.

Er.............ilk is not an insult. It means 'the same sort of thing'. So when I said, "including Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and their ilk" I mean that I am familiar with the range of ideas of the mythicists.

I'm pretty sure that I've read that book, incidentally. If it has it's own website referencing, enlarging on the chapters, definitely. However since it's been a while, I'll look for something from him in the New Year.

I'm still very unclear about the point you're making.

---

That's pretty much all bullshit.  From the records the church didn't burn for contradicting it's own mythology we know the Romans were very reluctant to kill the couple of hundred or so martyrs killed before Diocletian (yes, before he came to the throne there were very few christians killed by the state.  The idea of martyrdom is a lie instilled by the church to big up itself and it's sense of worth).

The BBC has its critics, but it is an excellent source of summary of the state of play from experts. You are welcome to deny the consensus view, but that doesn't alter its status as the consensus view.

The Wikipedia article linked to by Jehanne earlier (!!) backs all this up.

In addition, I'd like to repeat what I said about the NT as a collection of sources on this:

If we drop any idea for textual inspiration and treat the sources the same way as any other historical documents, it's a done deal historically. Whether it's the Gospel prophecies, the Gospel narratives, the letters of Paul to churches undergoing persecution, Paul's own personal accounts, the advice from the pseudepigrapha, or the martyrs of Revelation, there is a very, very consistent picture of what people were going through.

Indeed, with the multiplicity of sources and multiplicity of forms, it's an extremely fixed point to work from.

For the reasons I outlined earlier, this is absolutely what we would expect, given our knowledge of C1 Mediterranean society. Given there's nothing miraculous about being hit for half an hour by large men with big sticks, we can safely assume that it happened.

[Jehanne]

I have no idea why you would refer to Dr. Carrier as being "ilk".  He is an independent scholar who has his opinions about things, but his academic credentials are foundational in the areas in which he does his research, even though his views are outside of mainstream scholarship.

By the way, the reference above is to an undergraduate textbook in New Testament criticism and not one of Dr. Ehrman's popular books.

Er.............ilk is not an insult. It means 'the same sort of thing'. So when I said, "including Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and their ilk" I mean that I am familiar with the range of ideas of the mythicists.

I'm pretty sure that I've read that book, incidentally. If it has it's own website referencing, enlarging on the chapters, definitely. However since it's been a while, I'll look for something from him in the New Year.

I'm still very unclear about the point you're making.

---

The Wemstroms: How words turn from innocent to negative

[Drich]

Drich,

No one is claiming that the Romans practiced 21st-centry Western religious tolerance; rather, what modern scholars are claiming is that, 1) The Roman persecution of the early Christian communities was episodic and not widespread, 2) the persecutions were more for political reasons and not religious, and 3) of those Christians who were persecuted, just as many recanted and lived as those whom the Empire executed.  And, finally, #4, the early Christian communities embellished and exaggerated the extent of the Roman persecutions.

Dawn

1) the letter to pliny the younger from tragen the emperor shows persecution of the 1st century Christians on a empire wide scale. As the emperor's letter was addressing/ment to correct the level of punishment and or to whom was to be punished as the governor was killing all christians men women and children. The governor was seeking guidance to bring his state's level of participation up to the national scale. again this was done in the 1st century. So boom the letter wipes out the bs you keep saying it was episodic and not wide spread. pliny was a governor not a regent or a prator (mayor or consoulman) he was a governor just like our governors are of entire states their states encompassed whole countries. With this one statment your arguement is over. as if you were a christian you died if you claim not to be one you lived. that sport is christian persecution over whole regions. in the first century no less!

2) 


It does not matter why they were persecuted Again go to my example of the church executing gay people. does it matter why they execte admitted gays? or is it still persecution no matter the reason if the church was involved?!?! 

3) SO WHAT!!! How many churches do you think were in operation in the roman empire at this time? 0 why? because all the government need do is wait till sunday morning and raid each church and then they had undeniable proof of a person's christianity. Not allowing people to go to church is indeed persecution.

Imagine if the church would not allow gays to go to the movies or what's worse get married, culd you imagine the friggin stink they would make? about how unfair it is to have a fundamental right taken away?

4) you went full retard here..



You never go full retard! Otherwise how do you explain this:

the early Christian communities embellished and exaggerated the extent of the Roman persecutions.

Did you not see this:
As I have 1st and 2nd century non christian/secular historical references to nero burning christians. in addition to having them executed in the coliseum. I have and can provide again links where it was recorded where he crucified several hundred men women and children then covered them in oil and lite them on fire to light his garden party one night. When ever i see a claim like yours it is always tied to some douche bag commentary who's only saving grace is that he is someone in some anti god university. meanwhile I have the actual works of known secular first and second century historians who words have always been considered solid except when it comes to persecuting christians for some anti god collage professor reason.



Cassius Dio, Suetonius  Tacitus.Fabius Rusticus,  [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Elder][/url], 

This is a list of eyewitnesses and 1st century secular men. Nothing to do with the church some were in government others high ranking members of the senate and other s professional historians. these are all first person accounts to the burning of rome which Nero took the opportunity to blame all christians for and out law the religion. this according to these secular sources took place in 64AD

Here is what I mean by full retard. Granted from time to time we all make the mistake of blindly believing a new article or a documentary or the like from time to time, that's dumb but everyone does it. but when someone calls you on it and you double down without checking or vetting the facts... that's retarded.. where you just expend faith because you don't like someone despite where the truth is located. meaning in your mind because you don't like someone they can not be telling the truth. you would rather go with a source that makes you feel good on the chance they are right rather check and find out your trusted source was wrong and the person you dislike was right... if you just hold out someone will come up and save you without you having to do the work/think for yourself.
(no one is coming sweetheart because while they may not like me they respect the truth.)

Now full retard: to ignore evidence to ignore facts to ignore document and linkable truth to blindly and with more faith than it takes to be a christian hold on to a lie and out right blatant lie at this point given all the facts and links to the contrary. just so you do not have to eat crow in front of someone you hate. why? because the narrative is that person is dumb and a known liar and if he is right here you would in honestly have to go back and reevaluate almost everything you believe. So rather than question yourself you would rather be known or seen as a full retard than have to humble yourself and admit you were caught up in a anti god unsupported lie

---

that said mat 10 is not talking about facing execution if you keep reading Jesus lists out the people he expects you to stand up and represent his to more or less friends family anyone who would ask who's lve you would put before God. He in this statement wants you to know God is to come first even before the love you give to your parents.

What did thousands recant their faith in Jesus rather than face execution by the Romans?

Peter when he was young denied christ and lived. when he was older we have documentation He was hung upside down on a cross and died in the name of Christ.

Do you not think Peter the one who go away the first time simply forgot?

It's call conviction. once you have been convicted by the SPirit you fear no man you do not fear death and if it came down to it you would gladly die for what you believe.

To which I have no doubt some lived, but as many also died.

Despite that the fact that you could not profess belief in Christ means the state the roman empire at that time was persecuting Christians. argument ended.

---

That you can't imagine a faith being anything other than transactional is a you problem, nothing to do with the existence of other types of faiths.  In any case, this "jesus" guy expects a whole lot of silly shit, huh?  That's some awfully expensive cake, if you ask me.

expensive how? being consumed by hell expensive? oh, wait no that's not our lot.. do you mean muddle through life tied down by fake morality? Ei play by the rules of society or be shat on/ no again not our lot. do you mean I must be perpetually stuck on the out side looking in and wondering if this god thing is real? nope not us either surely you must mean being forced to live as if we were all alone and have to trudge and blaze our own trial with no help or hope for the future???

No to me it seems the more costly way to live is without God. As my only requirements is to love God with all I had.. upon which God tripled my capacity to love, and there by allowing me to give God all of my self and still love my family more than I could ever had if I not known him. Then I am free from all the things that burden you.

[Angrboda]

Drich, if you don't mind, I'd like to actually see the documents you are referencing, not just a list of names. A list of names tells us nothing.