Ask a Pagan (Again!)

[Lokabrenna]

Ah. So they didn’t lie, or “embellish”, but were deceived.

Firstly, to your point regarding the 'embellishment": who did that, and when did it start?

Secondly, are you of the opinion (someone else here suggested that? or was it you?) that it’s possible to have “mass hallucinations”?

If not, how do you propose that all of these guys were deceived? Who was the Big Deceiver in the Christian story?

I don’t think it was the fault of any one person. It wasn’t like some Great Conspiracy where a shadowy order is manipulating hapless victims behind the scenes. The authors of the Gospels clearly wrote their accounts with an agenda, and they obviously weren’t afraid to stretch the truth a little in service of that agenda. SGWessells covered this in their post, which is a far better explanation than what I have here.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Of this I have no doubt.

But those who maintain (not you apparently) that they lied must answer the question: has anybody ever endured horrific torture for the sake of a lie?

Of that, I have great doubts. :tsktsk:

Well, I’d say someone who KNOWS that what they’re dying for is a lie is pretty stupid, but I’ve never heard of a case like that.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I’d say someone who KNOWS that what they’re dying for is a lie is pretty stupid, but I’ve never heard of a case like that.

Exactly. So there was *no *embellishment. (Not sure why you would say that then. )

Originally Posted by Lokabrenna
I personally think that a historical Jesus did exist (it was a popular name at the time), but it’s been embellished to the point that he’s unrecognizable,

Rather, they were deceived, right?

Was it a mass hallucination that caused 5,000 to witness Jesus after the Resurrection?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think it was the fault of any one person. It wasn’t like some Great Conspiracy where a shadowy order is manipulating hapless victims behind the scenes.

Well, then, please provide some sort of explanation as to how these Gospel writers and epistle writers et al were deceived.

Could you perhaps provide the scenario for this Great Deception (that would, of course, be consistent with reason and with human nature.)

The authors of the Gospels clearly wrote their accounts with an agenda,

This, Loka, is another example of begging the question.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Was it a mass hallucination that caused 5,000 to witness Jesus after the Resurrection?

Actually, it’s interesting that the oldest complete Bible (the Codex Sinaiticus) that we have doesn’t even include certain verses regarding the Resurrection. No Resurrection, no post-Resurrection, no need for witnesses.

 

[John7]

I answered that question in this post (at the bottom), but, to sum it up:

Originally Posted by Lokabrenna
I suppose my thoughts on the matter are that perhaps Jesus did exist, but I don’t think what’s been written about him is entirely accurate

:compcoff:
examp
John quoting Jesus,
“I am…the truth”

is this statement true -or rather- accurate? was John accurate or made this stuff up, or someone else made up

or what Paul wrote about Jesus
“God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts”

do you think it’s true that Jesus’ spirit can enter into a heart?
(BTW do you believe in spirits? I do)

what, very generally, do you accept (as accurate) about Jesus from NT
-only events/sayings in Mark but no John, Paul, Matt, Luke etc?
-moral sayings but no miracles?

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, it’s interesting that the oldest complete Bible (the Codex Sinaiticus) that we have doesn’t even include certain verses regarding the Resurrection. No Resurrection, no post-Resurrection, no need for witnesses.

Loka, I wonder if you’re under the misapprehension that you are in dialogue with a Fundamentalist Christian, and not a Catholic?

You do know that Catholics believe that the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put down on paper, yes?

That is, we do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura, but believe that Sacred Tradition, esp for the first 400 years of Christianity, was what was the source of the paradosis.**

Thus, even if the oldest written record does not include the Resurrection, it is of no import to Catholics, who understand that the paradosis was spread through Sacred Tradition, not only through the Sacred Scriptures.

**As you are a pagan and not Christian it is not particularly egregious that you were unaware of this. However, it might help you in dialogue with Catholics, at a Catholic forum, to be a little more cogent about what is consonant with our faith.

 

[Lokabrenna]

You do know that Catholics believe that the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put down on paper, yes?

That is, we do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura, but believe that Sacred Tradition, esp for the first 400 years of Christianity, was what was the source of the paradosis.**

Thus, even if the oldest written record does not include the Resurrection, it is of no import to Catholics, who understand that the paradosis was spread through Sacred Tradition, not only through the Sacred Scriptures.

I find it interesting that Catholics claim that Sacred Tradition is wholly endorsed by their sacred text, but here you are claiming that the text itself doesn’t matter. It seems to me like what you’re saying is: “It really doesn’t matter what scholars believe the oldest rendition of the text says, Tradition trumps it because it’s more convenient for me to believe in it!”

Ah, well, that’s why I’m a Pagan and haven’t been a Catholic since high school, I suppose.

 

[amber_lux]

Why would they go to horrific, tortured, limb-tearing, bloody, mind-boggling deaths in the name of a lie?

The Sanhedrin abolished the death penalty prior to the crucifixion of Jesus.

The Roman government was the executor.

If one was not a Roman citizen, then the sentence was pronounced prior to the arrest. The trial was merely to confirm that the right individual was arrested, prior to the punishment being carried out. Recanting was pointless, since it would not have changed anything.

If one was a Roman citizen, then the trial had to be held in Rome, and one could appeal to Caesar. Depending upon one’s class, and social status, recanting might, but probably would not be a mitigating factor. The crime in question was sedition. Recanting simply indicated that one changed loyalties at the drop of the hat, and as such probably was not worthy of Roman citizenship.

It was only when Constantine implied in a letter to Parthanian Empire, that Christians were going to assist him in overthrowing that empire, that persecution of Christians started there. Under the circumstances, recanting Christ would have been pointless, since the crime was sedition, and the individual’s personal thoughts about Jesus were irrelevant.

They knew it was a lie;

What is the alleged lie that was known to be a lie?

Amber

 

[amber_lux]

has anybody ever endured horrific torture for the sake of a lie?

The point of torture is to inflict terror amongst the general population.

There is the exception when playing S&M games. That, however, tends to be private. Furthermore, I doubt that many, if any Christian martyrs died whilst playing an S&M game that went wrong.

Amber

 

[PRmerger]

The point of torture is to inflict terror amongst the general population.

This, amber, is a non-sequitur.

It provides no explanation as to why someone would face torture, horrific deaths and agony knowing something was a lie.

Do you believe that the early Christians lied about the gospel?

 

[PRmerger]

The Sanhedrin abolished the death penalty prior to the crucifixion of Jesus.

The Roman government was the executor.

If one was not a Roman citizen, then the sentence was pronounced prior to the arrest. The trial was merely to confirm that the right individual was arrested, prior to the punishment being carried out. Recanting was pointless, since it would not have changed anything.

If one was a Roman citizen, then the trial had to be held in Rome, and one could appeal to Caesar. Depending upon one’s class, and social status, recanting might, but probably would not be a mitigating factor. The crime in question was sedition. Recanting simply indicated that one changed loyalties at the drop of the hat, and as such probably was not worthy of Roman citizenship.

It was only when Constantine implied in a letter to Parthanian Empire, that Christians were going to assist him in overthrowing that empire, that persecution of Christians started there. Under the circumstances, recanting Christ would have been pointless, since the crime was sedition, and the individual’s personal thoughts about Jesus were irrelevant.

Are you familiar with the Emperor Nero?

I’m pretty sure that he lived centuries before Constantine.

Also, are you familiar with the games played in the Roman coliseium in which Christians were devoured by lions for sport? Was this before the time of Constantine? :yup:

What is the alleged lie that was known to be a lie?

Amber

That Christ was God and suffered, died and rose from the dead.

 

[PRmerger]

I find it interesting that Catholics claim that Sacred Tradition is wholly endorsed by their sacred text, but here you are claiming that the text itself doesn’t matter.

No, not saying that it doesn’t matter, Loka. I am saying that the paradosis was being proclaimed even without written recordings.

It would matter if there were *no *inspired texts that proclaimed the Resurrection. However, that, of course, is not the case.

It seems to me like what you’re saying is: “It really doesn’t matter what scholars believe the oldest rendition of the text says, Tradition trumps it because it’s more convenient for me to believe in it!”

Firstly, the text does include references to the Resurrection. See 1 Corinthians 15:14, found in the Codex.

Secondly, Tradition does trump in this context because it is only through Tradition that we know what Scripture is.

Now, could you please answer my question as to how these early Christians were deceived? Please offer a scenario that is consonant with reason, logic and human nature that would explain this. We need to have a Big Deceiver, a motive, a means and a general answer to why this occurred. Thanks.