Early Christians v Suicide Bombers

[SonOfMan]

We have historical evidence that Christ existed.

Historical evidence that a man named Jesus existed, but no historical evidence for Jesus being The Christ. The Jews don’t even believe that Jesus was The Christ. If he was, wouldn’t they, the ones who have the authority to interpret their own Scriptures properly, have recognized him if he was indeed The Christ?

As for “outsiders”–the Christians were made ‘outsiders’ by the Jews, from whom they were expelled. Their testimony was against their own interest–their grand reward for pursuing this ‘agenda’, was being ostracized from their own people, then later persecuted and slaughtered. That hardly sounds like pursuing an ‘agenda’; on the contrary–their blood testifies to the veracity of Christ.

It is generally accepted that the stories of early Christians being martyred is largely that of myth and legend and never happened. Relying on that alone seems like a weak reason. There is also the claim that Christianity was a very useful tool in assimilating other cultures/religions and replacing them, giving those that brought this new religion power and dominion over these new lands and people, which is definitely a self-interest. How do you reconcile all this?

I said nothing of evidence of Christ being God; only of Him being resurrected from the dead.

Christ’s divinity–His personage in the Trinity that is–is strictly a matter of Faith.

What evidence aside from the Bible, is there of Christ being resurrected? To my knowledge, there is zero evidence.

Thank you for being honest here though, that belief in Jesus as God is strictly a matter of faith.

 

[SonOfMan]

I have no idea who this Sathiya dude is, but to your question–“does having eyewitnesses to an event suddenly make it true?”–not at all. You have to take the totality of the evidence into consideration to determine veracity–including credibility of the witnesses–which is why I say that Christ’s witnesses are credible, because their testimony was completely against their own interest.

When did Krishna live?

Who are Krishna’s supposed eye-witnesses?

What were the circumstances of their testimony?

You brazenly, insultingly accuse the Christians of pursuing an agenda; what of Krishna’s alleged witnesses?

What ramifications did they allegedly endure, for their testimony?

Was their testimony congruent with, or diametrically opposed to their own self-interest?

What other evidence is there, of Krishna’s story?

krishna.com/evidence-krishna

For example, when He came five thousand years ago, millions of eyewitnesses saw Him, He did things only God can do, and Vyasadeva, a reporter with impeccable credentials, kept track of it all.

Vyasadeva recorded not only Krishna’s matchless deeds but also the testimonials of the greatest spiritual authorities of the time, a time when large numbers of people pursued spiritual realization with every ounce of their being. The consensus of these saints and sages—masters of spiritual learning and discipline—was that Krishna is God.

This is just from a quick search. These apologetics seem so familiar.

It seems the same weight should be given to Krishna as God that Jesus carries. Their assertions of evidence are just as credible to that of Christians.

 

[Goya]

Historical evidence that a man named Jesus existed, but no historical evidence for Jesus being The Christ. The Jews don’t even believe that Jesus was The Christ. If he was, wouldn’t they, the ones who have the authority to interpret their own Scriptures properly, have recognized him if he was indeed The Christ?

Shear ignorance. Jesus threatened the existing power structure; that’s why THEY had him crucified.

…and why after the original Old Testament Hebrew scriptures were destroyed upon the sack of J’lem by the Romans in or around 70 AD, when the Jewish authorities arranged to reconstitute those scriptures from the Greek Septuagint around 200 AD, they sought to remove expressly Christological elements.

You seem to have a poor understanding of the motivations at play there.

It is generally accepted that the stories of early Christians being martyred is largely that of myth and legend and never happened.

Nonsense. The catacombs’ mere existence, serves as Exhibit A of actual Christian persecution. Their contents, composite Exhibit B. Emperor Nero and his legacy…Exhibit C. ( I could go on…).

Relying on that alone seems like a weak reason.

Not the only reason, not by a long shot.

There is also the claim that Christianity was a very useful tool in assimilating other cultures/religions and replacing them, giving those that brought this new religion power and dominion over these new lands and people, which is definitely a self-interest. How do you reconcile all this?

Maybe like 3 centuries after Christ ascended; not during the first 3 hundred years though.

What evidence aside from the Bible, is there of Christ being resurrected? To my knowledge, there is zero evidence.

I’ll answer this question, after you provide provide acceptable answers to my
questions posted above.

Seems to me you’re seeking to avoid answering for your own/ Karishna’s weaknesses, by attempting to focus on the scepticism of Christ.

I’m not that dumb; or easy.

Thank you for being honest here though, that belief in Jesus as God is strictly a matter of faith.

It’s never been asserted as anything beyond an article of Faith.

How does one go about proving God anyway?

 

[Ignatius]

The question is though: what differentiates the second generation of martyrs who didn’t personally see Jesus, from the suicide bombers in terms of faith.

The Suicide Bombers are killing innocent people, that clearly is Evil with a Capital E. That is not martyrdom, it is mass murder. Those committing Pure Evil acts of mass murder have virtually nothing in common with those innocently living their lives who are rounded up and killed for their Faith.

 

[Giovanni]

As the ones who send these poor souls to blow themselves up would never think of doing anything that would harm them. The first 33 Popes of our early church were martyred.

Also Goya, going off the subject, Mohammed was poisoned by a Jewish woman whom Mohammed had her family killed. He endured an agonizing slow death where he said that he felt as though his aorta had been cut by the poison.

Peace.

 

[zz912]

It is generally accepted that the stories of early Christians being martyred is largely that of myth and legend and never happened.

No, it’s not generally accepted. There are some who claim this, but their evidence is lacking and the evidence in favor is strong. There was a book recently that claimed this, and it was lampooned for the silliness that it is. The catacombs of the first Christians exist today. You can visit them if you like.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

At a recent youth group meetings I went over the various arguments for the existence of God with the teens. At one point in the discussion I stated that the martyrdom of the apostles and early Christians, and the rise of Christianity all proved that Jesus must have risen from the dead.

If Jesus had not risen, what would cause these men to, so willingly, give their lives. There would be no glory in dying to perpetuate a myth that you know holds no truth.

I believe they gave their lives because they saw the risen Christ and believed.

My teens (who I have taught to question everything) asked what was the difference between the early Christians and Suicide Bombers, in the sense of willingness to die for their beliefs.

I feel like I should have a simple enough answer for this but I had a hard time answering.

Some help would be awesome

1. Unjust act- A martyr has an unjust act inflicted upon them (they are the victims of the unjust act), a suicide bomber inflicts an unjust act upon others (they create the victims)
2. Who is being glorified- A martyr doesn’t actively seek out martyrdom (they glorify God by not denying Him in order to stay alive- God is more important than me), suicide bombers actively seek out martyrdom (they glorify themselves by using death in the name of God- I’m more important than God)
3. Love of others over self- This is a combination of 1 and 2- Martyrs display their love of others (in this case God, and sometimes they’re persecutors [these martyrs are better people than I]) by accepting the unjust act being inflicted upon them, suicide bombers display a lack of love of others by being the ones who inflict unjust acts on others in order to glorify themselves (the innocent victims and God are used as tools to gain the status of martyr)

 

[gmcbroom]

Sonofman
I appreciate and understand that you are unsure. We’ve all been there. You seem to be caught in a hard place so let me help you. You seem to be stuck in believing and not believing. I urge you to look up Pascal’s wager then apply that to the catholic faith and the Hindu faith I think that’s where krishnas from. You ask for proof yet you seem to forget belief requires faith. One can’t prove or disprove that which no tool can measure ie God who is the very essence of to be. God is beyond any tool man can make. So science can never find him though they try.