Who Dies For A Lie?

[Nope]

No, I'm using the Bible as serious historians use any historical document, taking into account all the possibilities of bias and propaganda, error, politics...

By historical document do you mean that you hold it in the same regard as you do any other mythological story or are you saying that you believe the New Testament tales about a virgin giving birth is factual?

The bible is a historical document in the same way that The Epic of Gilgamesh(spelling?) is historical. You can gain some knowledge about the culture and myths of a group of historical people. Occasionally, the writers wove real events, places and people(like King Herod) into their stories but The entire book is simply mythological[/quote].

[Brakeman]

As others have pointed out extremely well (Esquilax especially), there is a difference between lying and saying something believed to be true, but ultimately false. The latter, rather than the former, is what people die for.

David Koresh, John Smith,

Both men really knew that they were not demi-gods, but rather than fess up to their profitable lies, they chose death.

[Vicki Q]

By historical document do you mean that you hold it in the same regard as you do any other mythological story or are you saying that you believe the New Testament tales about a virgin giving birth is factual?

The bible is a historical document in the same way that The Epic of Gilgamesh(spelling?) is historical. You can gain some knowledge about the culture and myths of a group of historical people. Occasionally, the writers wove real events, places and people(like King Herod) into their stories but The entire book is simply mythological

When in discussion with those of other beliefs, I would use the Gospels in the same way that one would use Josephus or Plutarch. I would certainly allow a degree of bias (Josephus is always aware he needs to keep on the side of his Roman patrons, just as Luke is promoting Xianity to Theophilus). Letters of Paul (authentic) should be read with the usual methodology of reading historical letters. Other parts of the N.T. are used in bespoke ways.

I don't see why a God who can create the universe(s) would struggle at all with organising a virgin birth, but I don't feel the need to panic about it as a non-negotiable part of Xian belief.

The Gospel genre is 'bios plus'- given the conventions of the day, the writers are certainly trying to write proper accurate history in a Greek bios style, but with Jewish elements.

I think you're trying to push for some variant of a Mythical Jesus. I don't do discussions on that, for the same reason that Richard Dawkins (rightly) refuses to debate creationist science. There are good reasons why MJ/non-existence of apostles etc aren't discussed by serious academics.

---

David Koresh, John Smith,

Both men really knew that they were not demi-gods, but rather than fess up to their profitable lies, they chose death.

I'm not sure who John Smith is here, but I suspect you're not referring to Pacohontas' bae.

As to David Koresh- I wonder makes you so sure he didn't believe it all. For example, to quote from Wiki, Koresh “was convinced that his martyrdom would be in the United States. Instead of Israel, he said the prophecies of Daniel would be fulfilled in Waco and that the Mount Carmel Center was the Davidic kingdom”. And “His conversations with the negotiators were dense with biblical imagery.” It also seems quite probable that Koresh was killed rather than committed suicide.

Whereas Xianity began with a number of witnesses (not limited to the disciples, but at least all of them), who went out in 'cold blood', able to walk away at any time, but choosing not to do so.

They knew perfectly well that they were going to get regularly beaten and likely killed for their message, but they went ahead anyway. They might be wrong, but it is incredibly obvious that they put up with all this because they believed in what they had seen.

[robvalue]

Blimey. So you're just assuming whatever is written in the bible is true. If you start with assumption, or "bias" then really there is nothing to discuss.

I'm sorry the video wasn't impressive to you. To me, it clearly debunks the entire argument from start to finish. Put simply, even if whoever died instead of admitting what they believed was wrong, even if that actually happened, all that proves is that they died protecting something they believed was true. That has no bearing on whether it was actually true.

[Nope]

By historical document do you mean that you hold it in the same regard as you do any other mythological story or are you saying that you believe the New Testament tales about a virgin giving birth is factual?

The bible is a historical document in the same way that The Epic of Gilgamesh(spelling?) is historical. You can gain some knowledge about the culture and myths of a group of historical people. Occasionally, the writers wove real events, places and people(like King Herod) into their stories but The entire book is simply mythological

When in discussion with those of other beliefs, I would use the Gospels in the same way that one would use Josephus or Plutarch. I would certainly allow a degree of bias (Josephus is always aware he needs to keep on the side of his Roman patrons, just as Luke is promoting Xianity to Theophilus). Letters of Paul (authentic) should be read with the usual methodology of reading historical letters. Other parts of the N.T. are used in bespoke ways.

I don't see why a God who can create the universe(s) would struggle at all with organising a virgin birth, but I don't feel the need to panic about it as a non-negotiable part of Xian belief.

The Gospel genre is 'bios plus'- given the conventions of the day, the writers are certainly trying to write proper accurate history in a Greek bios style, but with Jewish elements.

I think you're trying to push for some variant of a Mythical Jesus. I don't do discussions on that, for the same reason that Richard Dawkins (rightly) refuses to debate creationist science. There are good reasons why MJ/non-existence of apostles etc aren't discussed by serious academics.

---

David Koresh, John Smith,

Both men really knew that they were not demi-gods, but rather than fess up to their profitable lies, they chose death.

I'm not sure who John Smith is here, but I suspect you're not referring to Pacohontas' bae.

As to David Koresh- I wonder makes you so sure he didn't believe it all. For example, to quote from Wiki, Koresh “was convinced that his martyrdom would be in the United States. Instead of Israel, he said the prophecies of Daniel would be fulfilled in Waco and that the Mount Carmel Center was the Davidic kingdom”. And “His conversations with the negotiators were dense with biblical imagery.” It also seems quite probable that Koresh was killed rather than committed suicide.

Whereas Xianity began with a number of witnesses (not limited to the disciples, but at least all of them), who went out in 'cold blood', able to walk away at any time, but choosing not to do so.

They knew perfectly well that they were going to get regularly beaten and likely killed for their message, but they went ahead anyway. They might be wrong, but it is incredibly obvious that they put up with all this because they believed in what they had seen.

I see no evidence that Jesus is anything but a mythological figure. Obviously if I thought he was true, I would be a Christian.

[robvalue]

It is worrying to me that the first thing so many people would say, when you ask them what they believe in, would be jesus and/or God. Two fictional characters, not a solid start.

Imagine an alien landing and asking someone, "Hello human, what do you believe in?"

"Jesus"

"Who is jesus?"

"A guy who died 2000 years ago."

"OK. Next planet guys."

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you Nope? Well, okay.....if you say so, I guess.

[robvalue]

Haha well, yeah I wouldn't. If I thought the bible was true I still wouldn't be a christian. I'd be a theist who despises God.

[Nope]

Haha well, yeah I wouldn't. If I thought the bible was true I still wouldn't be a christian. I'd be a theist who despises God.

That is a good point. The god that Christian worships is a narcissistic sadist. Nothing is good about him. The relationship between the believer and their god is no difference than between an abused person and their abuser.

So, no I wouldn't worship Jesus either but there isn't a god/man that visited earth in the early first century so no need to worry about deciding between what I know is right(not worshipping a monster) and an eternity of torture.