**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person He wasn't "proved to be a real person", not by a long shot. The best you have is that historians tentatively, provisionally accept that a person around which the Jesus stories were based might have existed. If you don't know the difference between that, and "Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Bible existed", then you aren't prepared to have this kind of conversation. >a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? No, people can be honestly mistaken. Stories can naturally grow and get slightly imperceptibly exaggerated extremely quickly, we know this to be a fact. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him  No, we know very few people who died for their belief in Jesus. At least, not from the historical evidence, again. If you want to argue against the historical evidence of early Christian martyrdom, you're going to have a tough time. >these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles What people claimed to see these miracles? We don't have any eyewitnesses, we don't have anything written about Jesus that was written by anyone who knew him while he was alive. If you're not aware of that fact, if you genuinely think we have anything approaching eyewitness accounts of Jesus or his miracles, then, again, you simply aren't prepared for this conversation. >I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth Nothing you have listed gets even close my friend, sorry.

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? This describes *thousands* of famous historical figures. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? I find that to be a very unlikely possibility.. it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… Then the 9/11 hijackers must have died for the truth, right? People are willing to die for what **they believe** is true. That doesn't mean what they believe is **actually** true. The rest of your argument is the same. Just a tired spin on Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. I suggest you learn a bit about how mythology forms, how stories passed down orally change over time, and how many elements of Christianity were borrowed from other religions.

This rebuttal comes up _all the time_ and completely misses the point. The original argument was NOT that the early Christians died for what they believed to be true, therefore it was true. Your rebuttal _would work_ against this argument. Instead the original argument was: 1. Nobody will die for what they _know to be a lie_. 2. The early Christians died for a claim where they were in a position to know whether it was true or false. 3. Yet they died for it, implying that it was indeed true. You can’t run this same argument for Muslims, because while they do believe, they _are not in a position to know whether what they believe is true_, unlike the early Christians whose belief was in something they would know to be true or not: that they had seen the risen Jesus.

Provide non-biblical evidence for #2 please. Also, evidence that they weren't gullible fools would help too. Hint: Not arguments. You've already given us arguments. Please provide evidence. Things that are, y'know, evident. I'll never understand why Christian apologists think this stuff will persuade people who are skeptical of the Bible. Let me ask you this: If what you want is to *convince us* of something, why keep trotting out the same things that didn't convince us the last 500 times we heard them? Even if it's true, you already know we're not going to accept it as sufficiently evidenced. Why not find things we *would* find persuasive? Like empirical data showing that any of these miracles are repeatable under controlled conditions? That would help a lot.

A guy just lit himself on fire over a conspiracy theory that Joe Biden and Donald Trump are conspiring to stage a coup. This person was in as much a position to know whether this is true or not as you or I are, and he was willing to kill himself over it in the most painful way imaginable. By your logic, doesn't that mean you should believe his conspiracy theory?

This is the best.

Mic drop.

1. They "knew" Christianity was the correct religion the same way they "knew" the earth was flat, the center of the universe and the only source of life in the universe 2. Poor and uneducated early christains died for their beliefs. Wealthy and influential Christians did not. Almost like it was designed to control the masses 3. They died because they couldn't read and had limitless trust in anyone that could read and shared their dialect

Can you imagine that shit? People gathering around the campfire to listen to the one guy who could barely read, and just by virtue of that completely unimpressive fact, everyone thought that he was “divinely inspired”, and anything he said was true. “He says there’s a talking snake and a 900 year old guy that put all the animals in the world on a boat! It’s gotta be true, I have no idea how it couldn’t be! Do you see how this guy is reading this piece of papyrus over here?”

Youre not wrong but I do find it funny that the two examples you picked were both plagiarized from religions that were conclusively falsified

They weren’t falsified when these concepts were spread by oral tradition, which is my point.

The original text those stories came from was disproven by the discovery of Israel. The Mesopotamian polytheism had too many easily attainable conditions that would disprove the religion. It's why it died so long ago. Judaism straight up stole most of their stories and said they were acts of the Jewish God aka Yahweh aka the mesopotamian God of the sky Yah + the mesopotamian God of the earth Weh. They straight up stole the names of the mesopotamian gods. Jewish leaders just didn't share that information with the public until like 1.5k years later when no one cared any more

> because while they do believe, they are not in a position to know whether what they believe is true, unlike the early Christians whose belief was in something they would know to be true or not: that they had seen the risen Jesus. This is as absurd as saying that Mohammad was in a position to see that the moon got split in two, therefor we should believe that he was telling the truth. Not only would it apply to literally **every religious mythology on Earth,** it also means that Christians today are **not** in a position to know these things, so any modern claims that Christianity are true are moot.

What evidence do we have that “nobody would die for that they know is a lie”? Like that sounds like it could be reasonable…but is it? What if the truth is even worse than the lie? What if the shame of leaving their families for the is failed Massiah was so embarrassing that they’d rather die for the lie then let people remember them for the truth? What the apostles ate Jesus and that shame is worse than anything else? I can certainly imagine a situation where someone dies for a lie - but people toss this around like it’s as much a truth as the affect of gravity on earth.

I love that this is starting to pick up traction, I put that forward often. If we want to talk about inferences to the best explanation, literally positing that the apostles stole and ate Jesus' body is *far more likely* than that an actual resurrection took place. That one always seems to throw apologists for a loop. The "disciples ate the body" answers the question of the empty tomb far better, has more explanatory power, fits the historical data we have, and is a far more parsimonious answer than the one they want us to accept.

They were willing to die for a claim that jesus is god They were in no position to know whether jesus is a god or not. They were only in a position to know whether jesus claimed to be god. Knowing that jesus claimed to be god doesnt means jesus is god.

>2. The early Christians died for a claim where they were in a position to know whether it was true or false. But they weren't.

What do you mean by that? There is some ambiguity in your statement?

Early christians were not in a position to know whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. They were just accepting the stories being told - exactly like modem Muslims.

Well yes that there was a theory in the Bible that Jesus's body was stolen, but that myth was fabricated by the priests (See Matthew 28). However many of martyrs were able to see Christ in His risen flesh (Matthew 28, Acts 7:55-56, 1 Corinthians 15:3-9).

Umm, it looks like you are using the Bible to demonstrate that the Bible is true. If I believed the entire Bible was factual history then I would accept the resurrection. But I don't think the entire Bible is factual history so I don't accept the resurrection. >However many of martyrs were able to see Christ in His risen flesh There are two errors here. There is zero good evidence to think that **anyone" in the first two centuries was martyred for refusing to recant their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. The second error is that there is very little evidence than anyone who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus was then martyred.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/heavens-gate-cult-members-found-dead If I assume that what you say is true, the suicide of these 39 people proves that they were right.

This is completely disanalogous. What claim, where they are in a position to know whether it was false, did these people die for? Did they have experiences of someone/something, then die for it?

Unfortunately, it seems you can't think objectively, outside the box. In its early days, Christianity was likewise a sect, not a world wide religion. Literaly in both cases cult followers died for their faith. Out of Christianity there have been thousands of people who have willingly or unwillingly died for their faith or religion. Just to name a few martyrs with different beliefs: Socrates The ten martyrs of judaism Hussain ibn Ali, grandson of Muhammed Jan Hus Giordano Bruno Guru Tegh Bahadur Alexei Navalny And answering your question 'What claim, where they are in a position to know whether it was false, did these people die for?' https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/extremistmind https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11090214 Same as early Christian martyrs.

I don’t think you understand the nuance in the argument I’m making. I already conceded that others died for their faith. Why bring that up again? The difference is in a property of what they died for. Again, which other people died for something _that they were in a position to know was false_?

I hope I understand you correctly, but unfortunately English is not my native language, so there may be nuanced differences that I don't understand or express well. They did not think it was false and I assume none of the other religious or political martyrs have thought so. On the contrary, anyone who voluntarily dies for her religious or political beliefs believes that she owns the truth Jesus was a prophet among the dozens if not hundreds of other prophets of his time. Throughout the history of mankind probably thousands of prophets, kings, and heroes have claimed that they have a special relationship with their God(s). Supernatural acts and experiences (even resurrections) are very common among religions and religious people and not only by Christianity. Around half a billion people believe that the actual Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of Avalokitesvara who embodies the compassion of all Buddhas. There are many Buddhist martyrs as well. You can witness the Dalai Lama anytime you really want.

> They did not think it was false and I assume none of the other religious or political martyrs have thought so. On the contrary, anyone who voluntarily dies for her religious or political beliefs believes that she owns the truth The point you are missing is in /u/MonkeyJunky5's point #1: > 1\. Nobody will die **for what they know to be a lie.** I'm ok with granting this point, though it's not actually as conclusive as he suggests. I wouldn't say that *nobody* would die for a known lie, but certainly most people wouldn't. But that isn't where his argument really falls apart. Both premises 2 and 3 are wrong. > 2\. The early Christians died for a claim where they were in a position to know whether it was true or false. This is a flawed assumption. We have no way to know whether they were in a position to know or not. The bible says they were, but it was written decades after the fact by people who were not witnesses, so it can't be treated as an absolutely reliable source. > 3\. Yet they died for it, implying that it was indeed true. This is a false dichotomy. The opposite of "I know this is a lie" is not "I know this is true", but "I believe this is true." So even ignoring the problem in #2, and even assuming these people really were martyred for their beliefs (there is no evidence anyone was actually martyred, as others have pointed out) all we can conclude from their deaths is that *they believed* they were dying for a good cause.

>I'm ok with granting this point, though it's not actually as conclusive as he suggests. I wouldn't say that nobody would die for a known lie, but certainly most people wouldn't. Fair enough, there’s always the odd ones out. But I’d seriously press in what situation one would die _solely for the lie_. Even in weird hypothetical scenarios, it seems like we would have to introduce some other factor that would provide such motivation. In any case let’s accept that P1 is at least strong and carry on. 2. The early Christians died for a claim where they were in a position to know whether it was true or false. >This is a flawed assumption. We have know way to know whether they were in a position to know or not. Let me be clear on my claim. I’m claiming that many early Christians had an experience of Jesus after Jesus’s death. Now, that experience could have been hallucinatory, real, etc. The point here is that they had such an experience and just like you would be in a position to know whether you had an experience of meeting Michael Jordan, of course they would know whether they had an experience of meeting Jesus post-death. >The bible says they were, but it was written decades after the fact by people who were not witnesses, so it can't be treated as an absolutely reliable source. 1) “Absolute reliability”, whatever we take this vague term to mean, probably isn’t a requirement for the premise still being strong. 2) To my knowledge, one of the more accepted facts of early Christianity, is that the early ones had experiences of Christ post-death, and became convinced that He had risen from the dead. Whether the experiences were hallucinatory or not is debated, but that they had such experiences is almost universally accepted. >This is a false dichotomy. Well hold on here; a false dichotomy is when 2 choices are presented as mutually exhaustive, when in fact they aren’t. To analyze my argument properly, we need to see if P1 + P2 entails C. P1. Nobody dies solely for proposition P when P is a known lie. P2. The disciples died solely for P. C. Therefore P wasn’t a known lie, hence was a known truth. I concede here that P just means that the disciples _thought_ they had an experience of the risen Jesus. It still stands that this can’t be said of any other religion; they have experiences of what they think might be Allah, but the early Christians experienced what they thought was a physical manifestation.

> But I’d seriously press in what situation one would die solely for the lie. > > Like I said, I will grant the point. Arguing about outliers is a waste of time. >Let me be clear on my claim. I’m claiming that many early Christians had an experience of Jesus after Jesus’s death. Now, that experience could have been hallucinatory, real, etc. So first off, you simply do not know this is true. You know the bible says that is true, but you only accept it as true because you believe the bible is true. But if you are being intellectually honest, you must be able to grant that you cannot actually be certain whether the statement is true or not. And if you are granting that the experience could be hallucinatory, you are flat out admitting your original #2 claim was false. This is what you claimed: >The early Christians died for a claim **where they were in a position to know whether it was true or false.** If you are allowing hallucinations, then you are changing the claim to: > The early Christians died for a claim where they **believed** whether it was true or false. After all, if they only hallucinated it, then they **did not** "know" "whether it was true or false", nor were they "in a position" to know it. They only believed it. That is significantly different from your original claim. And merely having a reason to believe undermines your entire argument. Merely having a reason to believe does not even *slightly* show that what they believed was true. > The point here is that they had such an experience and just like you would be in a position to know whether you had an experience of meeting Michael Jordan, of course they would know whether they had an experience of meeting Jesus post-death. You just granted that it could have been a hallucination. How can a hallucination put you "in a position to know whether you had an experience of meeting" Jesus? Is the schizophrenic guy who hallucinates that he is talking to Elvis "in a position" to know that Elvis is alive? >1) “Absolute reliability”, whatever we take this vague term to mean, probably isn’t a requirement for the premise still being strong. I absolutely agree, to the point that I went back and reread what I wrote thinking you were misquoting me. That was a stupid thing to say on my part. What I should have said was: > The bible says they were, but it was written decades after the fact by people who were not witnesses, so it can't be treated as a reliable source. The bible is not a reliable source *at all*. There is zero extra-biblical evidence supporting any of the non-mundane claims in the bible, and numerous things, even on mundane claims, that we know are false. As such, none of it should be treated as true. > To my knowledge, one of the more accepted facts of early Christianity, is that the early ones had experiences of Christ post-death, and became convinced that He had risen from the dead. Accepted by who? Christians? Of course they accept that. Show me *non-Christians* who believe that to be true, specifically that they had *non-hallucinatory* experiences of Christ after his death. >I concede here that P just means that the disciples thought they had an experience of the risen Jesus. Which undermines your entire argument. Merely thinking something is true **CANNOT** justify a conclusions that it therefore is true. >It still stands that this can’t be said of any other religion Who cares? You have yourself just, unintentionally, admitted that your entire argument is meaningless, so why does it matter that a meaningless argument can't be used for other religions? It can't be used for yours, either, so it is worthless regardless of the religion you are talking about. Edit: > C. Therefore P wasn’t a known lie, hence was a known truth. Again, that is a false dichotomy. You are assuming two possibilities: 1\. known lie 2\. Known truth There is a third: 3\. believed falsehood Even if I granted that they were "in a position to know" (which I don't, as explained above), "being in a position to know" doesn't guarantee that their claim is true. They could be wrong for a number of reasons. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

How does the awareness of the early Christians in the physical manifestation of Jesus as the son of God differ from the awareness experienced by the all Buddhists of 'every Dalai Lama being a manifestation of all previous Buddhas'? Or the Ancient Egypt where the Pharaoh was often considered to be divine?

>You can’t run this same argument for Muslims, because while they do believe, they are not in a position to know whether what they believe is true, How do you know? They have as good a claim to divine revelation as anyone.

This is incorrect. What test would they have done to know Jesus was God? What test would they do to know why Jesus resurrected? Without this methodology i see no justification to claim they knew anything to be true.

The martyrdom accounts of early believers is not historical. Most of these come from church tradition of later centuries. 1. We actually **do** know that people die for what they know to be lies, it happens often and throughout history, this is so easily proven wrong that it's incredible anyone still tries to raise this as a serious contention. 2. We absolutely **do not know** that the early Christians who were martyred were in a position to know whether it is false or not. Of the ones who were killed, the only historical evidence we have tells us that they were scapegoats for political games. There is no reason to think that they had an opportunity to recant, that their recanting would have changed anything about their fate - hell, for all we know, every single one of them might have recanted and renounced belief in Jesus, and the executioners said "ok? who cares" and still went through with it anyway. We would have no way of knowing. 3. The persecution of early Christians was sporadic, and again, politically motivated. What we do know from history is that there were Christians in the late 1st, and into the 2nd centuries who did die for their Christian beliefs. These are people who never had met Jesus, who were converted long after he died - people who had likely never even met the apostles. This is the majority of the people who were persecuted. **It is not impressive, unique, nor compelling** in the slightest that some people who came to believe in a religion completely disconnected from the early founding members of that religion had conviction in the face of death. This is utterly mundane.

>1. Nobody will die for what they _know to be a lie_. >2. The ~~early Christians~~ Islamic extremists died for a claim where they were in a position to know whether it was true or false. >3. Yet they died for it, implying that it was indeed true. Crazy hot take opinion 4. They liked the smell of their own shit

What claim did the Islamist die for that they could know was false? Everything they die for is unfalsifiable (e.g., 72 virgins) and wouldn’t be known to them until after death.

Oh so Islamic extremists arent justified? How can a religion be falsifiable? I hate to tell you but some internal logic wont cut it.

The fact you can see the non-falsifiability of Islam as clear as day, and NOT see it for your own religion, when it’s an identical thought process, boggles my mind. -

> Yet they died for it, implying that it was indeed true. Christians love leaving out the “honestly mistaken” part.

Okay, most of this is fair to say but this form of the argument is still terribly weak. For a start, we only have so many accounts from so many people. Not all of them died for the same reasons or believed the same things. They didn't all go around together all the time either. While there are some things they may have known the truth about that we don't, they all knew different things and made their decisions for different reasons. We don't know whether they were lied to or fooled. We don't know whether they're lying to us. We don't know what other situations or circumstances were in play to influence the course of events. There are just too many reasons to doubt the idea that this or that Christian knew for sure and died specifically because they weren't willing to say otherwise. It's also a fact that some modern Christians are quite happy to employ lies, fallacies and deceptions in their endeavours to spread the religion. Given that fact, I think it's entirely possible that someone would die for a lie. If you were truly convinced that belief in Yahweh was the best thing for people and that the influence of Jesus would be the best way to spread that belief, wouldn't you die for that idea even if you knew Jesus was a big fat phony? How many murderers do you think go to the chair still declaiming innocence? Heck, maybe they were just expecting to be rescued at the last moment. There are just too many ways things could have gone down to say for sure that anyone died for the truth.

> The early Christians died for a claim where they were in a position to know whether it was true or false. How did they determine Jesus was God?

I’m not sure, but however they came to that conclusion, they were in a position to know whether they had actually experienced Jesus risen or not.

Plenty of people believe they'd have had experiences with someone claiming to be divine. Just because they believe so doesn't make their claim true.

How many Christians are in this category of eyewitness martyrs? One? Maybe two?

Except that you can't know that "2", worse, it's just wrong. Everybody is, all the time, suceptible to being mistaken or conned. We have a story about people seing a guy after his presumed death, just like we have a story about X cult leader meeting with aliens (and people giving all their money to them or commiting suicide for the cause)

Joseph Smith

Premise 1 sounds good, but there are no limits to human stupidity.

Since you seem to be arguing about the likelihood of things, which is more likely: That a 1st century Jew was *actually* born of a virgin, cured the sick and blind, turned water to wine, walked on water, fed a whole crowd with enough food to only feed a few, was crucified, died, resurrected and ascended to heaven… Or that some people who were *actively searching for their messiah* were so superstitious and gullible that they were fooled in to a false belief? It doesn’t matter how unlikely you think the second option is. If likelihood is the basis of your argument, option 1 is out of the question.

Exactly. The supernatural has never been demonstrated to be real. So when making a list of candidate explanations of any given event, you only get to put options onto that list that have empirical backing. Because you can prescribe any imaginatory being/thing with the exact qualities that would allow it to have explained (x) event. But that's *just* making things up. So until there's some kind of repeatable, independently verifiable evidence that ressurections are anything but imaginary; there's no reason to believe that Jesus ressurected. Because possibility is something that must be demonstrated.

Even the most twisted and ridiculous conspiracy theory that still holds to natural explanations would still be more likely than something supernatural.

But the religious don’t see it this way. They’ve presupposed the possibility, and likelihood of their God. Their whole lives they’ve been told by many around them that their God exists. So any good thing, or any coincidence; they’re all attributed to their God. Even though coincidences just happen, and good things just happen. But if they’re religious long enough, and keep connecting dots. They’ll eventually think to themselves that they’ve amassed a horde of undeniable evidence for their particular God. When in reality all it was, was cherry picking, and rose colored glasses. With no stats to back up the idea that obeying any particular religion gives any better or worse outcomes. Prayer has never been demonstrated to be more effective than not praying. These are things we can test. But “I know Jesus is real, because of how he’s worked in my life” Sure… and the person down the street “knows Allah is real, because of what he’s done” in their life. Just connecting dots that don’t need to be connected.

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person News to me. >supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? Lots of both fictional characters and real people have myths created about their life to the point that it's a 'lie'. And certainly the claims about this character are ridiculously far-fetched and can be considered so. After all, they're not credible at all. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? Well that's so common it's almost boring. People are, sadly, willing to die for demonstrably false beliefs *all the time.* We see it happen so very often. Just today in fact a guy burned himself to death over ridiculously obviously wrong conspiracy theories. >So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. were they hoodwinked? (Very unlikely) Two problems there, of course. People are gullible. They can and do believe ridiculous things. All the time. *Lots* of people. This is only too demonstrable. Second, stories of people doing things are just that. They're *stories*. That doesn't mean people really did those things. > I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. You would be wrong. Instead, you falling for very common and typical fallacious thinking. > you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. First, you must be willing to admit you may be wrong, and be willing to change your mind, and be willing and wanting to have as many true and accurate positions on reality as is reasonably possible. Without that, this won't happen.

>I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. You don't know what evidence is and nothing will change your mind. Your not basing your beliefs on verified information. Also... >it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… ...this bullshit argument really needs to die after we saw so many idiots willingly die and kill/damage the people around them with Covid.

You’re really not making an argument here bud, EXPLAIN HOW it’s not "verified information" Also that doesn’t prove those people were correct, it just shows that they believed in what they were doing..

> You’re really not making an argument here bud, EXPLAIN HOW it’s not "verified information" This is why I said you don't know how evidence works. I wouldn't need to explain it to you if you understood what testable, verifiable evidence was. > Also that doesn’t prove those people were correct, I have no idea what you interpreted my point as. >it just shows that they believed in what they were doing.. Yes, which is something religious cults are famous for.

>You’re really not making an argument here bud, EXPLAIN HOW it’s not "verified information" Educate yourself. Read a book on modern new Testament scholarship by Bart Ehrman or Elaine Pagels or Dominic Crossan or Candida Moss or anyone else with relevant expertise in the field.

How old are you? You come off as really immature and naive and … uneducated.

Can’t argue back.. so u instead insult my character.. classic move lol.. But I guess according to your beliefs there’s nothing wrong with that.. since we’ll all just be maggot food anyway.. therefore there’s no good or evil.. it’s all relative.

**”Dumb ass lol.. I’m not even gonna entertain this nonsense”** This you?

Oh! Yes! That was because the man tried to compare my religion to Nazism.. which is an obvious insult.. therefore I was just giving the same energy back to them… but that had nothing to do with you and I sir.. you should be ashamed of yourself.

Is it “turn the other cheek” day or “eye-for-an-eye” day? I didn’t update my calendar last week. Thanks in advance!

He believes in self defense.. turn the other cheek is more for someone who’s weaker than you.. Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Same energy, not turning the other cheek, interesting…

Welcome to Reddit.

He is not insulting you. You are showing ostensibly that you are not prepared to have this conversation, ignoring what actual bible and history scholars are saying about it and the figures of the characters appearing on it. How early christians copied all and every of the myths of other religions of the same region where christianism was born. As you are obviously uneducated and don't have a lot of tools, you are just trying to push your beliefs on us. As you are obviously young you are stubborn and you are incapable of conceding points when someone points your flaws, letting you pride take the best of you. So there you go, young and uneducated.

> classic move lol.. This "classic move" is called an Ad Hominem. Which you would know if you weren't an immature, naive, uneducated, teenager. And, because you're an immature, naive, uneducated, teenager, it's not an ad hominem. It's just an insult.

lol I can tell u definitely got yourself a boner after making yourself sound intelligent…… 😭only a geek actually knows these terms….grow up bud.

Whoops. Looks like you forgot to change accounts before commenting on your own thread.

Little boy *blows you kiss*

Prove it boy

>it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… Citation absolutely needed. This is before we even get into whether you can demonstrate a single person who would have definitely known that Jesus was a fraud, chose to die for him. >I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. Okay. Lets start with what evidence you have that 1: Jesus was a historical person. 2: The stories told about him and his claims are entirely accurate 3: That people believed those stories, and then they had proof they were true or false and then they died in a situation where they could have escaped death by simply not believing.

1) Jesus of Nazareth is not proven to have lived. Jesus was not an uncommon name at the time—nor is it now. 2) None of the written sources are contemporary with the purported lifespan of Jesus or the apostles. They were written decades, if not centuries, later. 3) Cults around the world exist and people die for them believing their teachings are true. They can’t all be true, though. Can they? 4) We have no direct testimony of anyone who met Jesus, let alone saw him perform miracles. People think Uri Geller performed miracles by bending spoons. People are, in fact, gullible. 5) The points you’ve made don’t add up to strong evidence, they’re all individually fairly weak and when you add them up it’s just a collection of fairly weak points. A bunch of testimony exists that Shakyamuni Buddha healed people and did miracles, why aren’t you a Buddhist? Edit: This doesn’t even address non-Trinitarian Christian objections that believe he lived but was not a god. Not Yahweh, not Jehova, not El Shaddai, etc.

Lisab al Gaib!!

>Bless the Maker and His water. >Bless the coming and going of Him. >May His passage cleanse the world. >May He keep the world for His people. - [Imperial Ecologist Liet Kynes](https://youtu.be/nEV5aY0sGEQ?si=kh14q1N3kguPDObf)

And they wonder why atheists get so angry and frustrated with theists. They come in here, cocky and arrogant with their same tired arguments, again and again, ad nauseum (not even good arguments - just more of the same empty assertions). It’s exhausting. They never have inclination they’ve given their beliefs or anything we say, a second thought. I don’t know why I expect anything different.

Maybe because you’re afraid to return to the truth you have left so long ago.. you wrestled with God.. you wanted to continue to believe.. but your own pessimism and the negative views of others had warped your psyche.. Come back to Christ.

>They come in here, cocky and arrogant with their same tired arguments, again and again >Maybe because you’re afraid to return to the truth you have left so long ago.. you wrestled with God.. you wanted to continue to believe.. but your own pessimism and the negative views of others had warped your psyche.. Come back to Christ. Exactly like that, yes.

You’re adorable.

You too.. I love how you feel the need to actually comment on my post when you don’t plan to actually debate/discuss what I just said.. but it’s ok.. it’s your life.

Let me explain this to you. u/BourbonInGinger has just discounted everything you have tried to naively claim, simply because you have made a bunch of unsupported assertions, not only from an atheistic point of view but from what any scholar or historian would consider to be supported. You are a living example, along with many others, that show living proof of "those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes". You lost any ability to "debate/discuss" simply because you did not either debate or discuss. You started with wild, unthought out assertions and when this was pointed out you responded with wild assertions that have no basis in reality, but reflect your beliefs and -limited exposure to the world.

I’m a long time Christian of decades. I was a youth worship leader, went on missions, taught as a schoolteacher for years. I was one hundred percent “sold out for Jesus” as the saying goes. And I am an atheist because of precisely what you are demonstrating here: I care about believing true things. You’re just here to preach a bunch of half-truths, falsehoods, and long debunked arguments. The *only* way you’re going to convince me to come back, is not by arrogantly preaching misinformation. The first step would be if you recognize that what you’re spouting is flawed. If you had the humility and demonstrated education to know the arguments you’re trying to present better. And then *actually give us a reason to think that what you believe is true*. Without that, I simply cannot believe.

> Maybe because you’re afraid to return to the truth you have left so long ago Not accurate for many atheists that were never religious. Not accurate for those that were. Unsupported and fatally problematic claim (that that's 'the truth'). Possible emotional projection. Thus, this can only be dismissed outright.

There is no truth here, there are claims here. I have positive views of life and my life is better without belief in these claims. Going back would be harmful.

Ok, now I know you’re a troll.

Interesting. I'm also frustrated with you, and I *never* believed in your god or in Jesus.

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person He wasn't. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? Dying for a lie is pretty common. The 19 9/11 hijackers died for a lie. Why couldn't the early Christians? >it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… Ok but why do you think they would know it was a lie? People believe lies and wrong things all the time. That's literally what a con is. A conman gains the confidence of unsuspecting people to exploit them. The people who are victims of the con certainly believe it to be true. >So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. were they hoodwinked? (Very unlikely) Why unlikely? Very likely. Are you a Muslim? There are over a billion Muslims around the world, surely that many people couldn't have been hoodwinked could they have? >since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles… No *they* didn't. We don't have any contemporary eye-witness accounts of Jesus. Just people who heard stories who heard stories who heard stories. >u can argue that these are disingenuous… Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? This is a variation on the "liar, lunatic, or Lord" situation. No they weren't crazy. They were misled. They were conned. They were lied to, they believed exaggerations, etc. you don't have to be crazy to believe incorrect things. >And that Christ happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? (ALSO INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY).. Again we don't have any contemporary accounts of Jesus. Just stories that were written down decades later. >I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. You're wrong >if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. I don't think we can. Your post is so incredibly naive that you are incapable of recognizing how wrong you are and where your logic is flawed. We'd be tilting at windmills with you.

>So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. "All these people"? How many are we talking about? 5? 10? Who do you think wrote these stories? I think people imagine things and bereavement delusions are common. You don't need to be crazy to experience a delusion. I don't think it's necessary that anyone lied for these stories to develop. The most likely answer is that a charismatic guy collected followers and they were pretty bummed when he was killed. They hallucinated his resurrection and resurrection was the most desirable solution. The stories developed from there.

Yes. That happens, even today. Take Trump: there are people who believe Trump is a superhero and a genius, created myths around him when he is still alive and are willing to go to prison or even die for him. And when he passes away eventually half of them is gonna believe he isn't really dead and will return one day.    Sounds familiar? Does it make any of it true?

You want me to believe that there was a teacher named Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua touring the Middle East who got crucified. Okay, yeah, it all sounds like it could reasonably have happened. If you want me to believe that he had magic powers, then you are going to need to provide verifiable and testable evidence for magic powers. Something that could have passed the James Randi One Million Dollar Paranormal challenge or similar challenges.

1) accounts of eye witness testimony (some will tell u there wasn’t eye witnesses.. let me tell you they’re wrong.. 2) historical documentation; the New Testament, The writings of Flavius Josephus: While primarily a historian, Josephus briefly mentions Jesus and his ability to perform "surprising deeds" in his "Antiquities of the Jews" (Book 18, Chapter 3). (Though this isn’t a detailed account of specific miracles) it does acknowledge Jesus’s reputation for performing extraordinary acts. The Talmud: Jewish rabbinic literature, such as the Babylonian Talmud, contains references to Jesus and his actions, including his ability to perform miracles. The writings of Pliny the Younger: In his letters to Emperor Trajan, Pliny mentions early Christians and their practices, which indirectly attest to the belief in Jesus' miracles within the early Christian community.Early Christian Apocryphal Writings: While not included in the New Testament, some apocryphal texts from the early Christian period, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter, contain additional stories and accounts of Jesus' miracles,

No eyewitness accounts. Cronologically first is Paul who didn't know Jesus. His mentions - (Gal. 4:4, 1 Cor 9:15; Gal. 1:18-19, 1 Thess. 2:14-16, Rom. 1:3 which comes from 2 Sam. 7:14 and 1 Cor. 15:3-8 which is what others believed). None of these are eyewitness accounts. Gospels next - written from 70CE onwards. Mark first and the others were written from Mark (and Q). Written in the style of Greco-Roman bios which are highly fictitious (Robyn Faith Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament Within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021). Luke himself admits he just interviewed Christians. Not an eyewitness. Externally theres Josephus (Ant. 18.3.3 and Ant. 20.200) born after Jesus death and didn't write these until 90CE or so. Mostly agreed that they've been tampered with and it's unclear whether just writing hearsay. Pliny is not an independent source (interviewed Christians), Tacitus used hearsay (Margaret H. Williams, Early Classical Authors on Jesus. London: T&T Clark, 2022) and is not independent, his linguistics are similar enough to Pliny to believe they influenced each other. Suetonius talks about a rabble rouser and not much else - hearsay. Lucian is a satirist; Celsus, Phlegon, Origen, Thallus, Galen etc can be easily dismissed, writings don't exist any more or are writing from Christian understanding/hearsay rather than testimony or eyewitness. "James", "Jude", "Peter" etc. are regarded almost universally by scholars to be forgeries, and probably written in the late first or early second century CE.

Very well written and researched. And your name. Chefs kiss! Great to see another Hobb fan in the wild.

Thank you and hoorah! I wonder how she's getting on with the Patience and Lacey book(s) she was planning?

I have this irrational fear that she might pull a Patrick Rothfuss on us. But, fingers crossed!

Oh no, don't invoke the name of he who shall not be named! She still seems to be working and she's off on tour this month I think? Although not overseas, disappointingly. I met her a few years ago with my dog (named from a character, obviously!) and she was absolutely lovely. Time for a re-read.

Well damn. I'd love it if she came to Ireland. And I'm glad to hear she is lovely. I had thought she would be. >Oh no, don't invoke the name of he who shall not be named! What have I done?!?! >Time for a re-read. I'm waiting for my son to be just a little older before I start reading it with him. He's 9, so just a few more years and I think he'll love it. Then again, that does give me time to reread it too... just to make sure it's suitable. For science!

Oh wow, what a journey that is going to be for the both of you. Also - poor child! Hobb really knows how to torture her protagonists and us readers. They're such rich characters, I hope your son loves them as much as we do. I always worry sharing the books with friends that they won't 'get' Fitz or just won't like the series. Rothfuss (and Martin) needs to get on with it. I'm starting to feel like it was all an experiment or some kind of "I'm subverting the narrative by not releasing the third one" kink now! I've given up on both of them. Do you read Abercrombie?

Okay. So since you aren't reading what I'm writing, allow me to be even more clear. If you want me to believe in magic powers then eyewitness testimony isn't going to cut it.

Well do you believe that the Napoleon wars happened and that Julius Caesar was really murdered?? Because there’s no photos or videos of both historic events.. only eye witness testimony

>and that Julius Caesar was really murdered?? Do you believe that his horses wept for days after he was murdered? There's sources that claim they did. Your conclusions when it comes to supernatural claims from antiquity are no different from mine. You're simply lowering your standard of evidence when it comes to your god.

Do I believe that Julius Cesar was murdered? Sure. Do I think that Darth Sideous killed Cesar with force lightning? Not so much.

That’s because.. eye witness testimony and documentation says he was stabbed to death…

You seem to be suggesting that the only thing stopping you from believing in a wrinkly ball sack of a man that can shoot lightning from his fingertips is a lack of witnesses rather than the idea of someone with sci-fi superpowers actually existing as being a ludicrous idea. Sweet fuck dude, develop some skepticism.

So if u were in a room full of 18 people and all of them claimed to see a spider in the corner of the room but for some reason you can’t see it (because your not wearing glasses, you’re not looking in that direction, whatever it maybe).. do u trust that the spider is actually there? Or do u assume they’re all wrong until u see it?

>eye witness testimony and documentation says he was stabbed to death Okay. So let me acknowledge that, and raise you a counterpoint. If you think so highly of your "eyewitness testimony," are you also positing that when Hindus see their own pantheon of gods, that this is also true? Or how about when it's not so reliable, like so-called eyewitness testimonies for Big Foot? Or UFO's and alien abduction? Or ghosts, including ghosts from other folk myths? What about the countless court cases where eyewitness testimony was so important, but later got overturned by DNA evidence? "Eyewitness testimony" is notoriously unreliable. And if you're so eager to accept it for Christianity, you have to accept it for everyone.

> some will tell u there wasn’t eye witnesses.. let me tell you they’re wrong Don't just tell us. Show us the evidence.

>accounts of eye witness testimony (some will tell u there wasn’t eye witnesses.. let me tell you they’re wrong..   Oh, so you are saying they are wrong? Cool.   Please provide us with this eyewitness testimony of the events of Jesus’s life and death and resurrection.  Please link me to the first-hand primary account of the event of Jesus is life written by someone who witnessed the firsthand.   Well? >historical documentation You have none: of every single source you just mentioned, only one of them Wrote within 100 years of the events in question. That one is Josephus, of whom at least half of his references to Jesus are medieval forgeries, and the remaining one, if not a forgery, testifies only to the existence of Christians: nothing else. I know this is an article of faith among theists who aren’t particularly well educated in history, but you are quite wrong. You have absolutely no contemporary primary historical evidence of any kind that Jesus even existed, let alone the events of his life.

According to many scholars, the *Testimonium Flavianum* of Josephus has been tampered with - additional material was apparently inserted into the text by Eusebius, many years after Josephus wrote his historical accounts. Ask yourself this: If Josephus *really* thought so highly about Jesus, why confine himself to a single, ill-placed paragraph, sandwiched between an account of two calamities that occurred in a time of civil unrest in the Levant? Why did he not expound further on the alleged miracles or devote any more time and effort to the story? I'll tell you why: *Because Josephus didn't write that passage.* He never became a Christian. No one is doubting that *Christians* existed back then. They clearly did, and their behaviour was an ongoing problem for the Roman Empire because they didn't observe the religious customs of the general population and were therefore viewed as disloyal to the Emperor.

Don't you see what "accounts of eye witness testimony" looks like to us? It looks like "people claiming that other people saw something." It's like "I haven't got the murder weapon and I don't know if there are any prints on it, but look, I've got a *drawing* of the murder weapon with the suspect's prints drawn on it!" An account of eye witness testimony is nothing. A 2000 year old story about someone else who said they saw something. That's your standard of evidence for accepting that someone is a god who defeated death???

You sure like to use the word "proven" a lot where it doesn't belong. Here's what we have: It is the scholarly consensus that there was a real man at the core of the myth. This position is ultimately based on Occam's razor. And I'm not saying that's wrong by the way. It is also the scholarly consensus that we don't know much about this man. And he probably didn't even claim to be a god. So let's go with the simplest explanation here. There was a man who had some followers that really liked what he had to say and when he died people were very, very sad. Then over time legend grew around him. The end. If you find anything wrong with that let me know.

A dude just lit himself on fire because he believed Donald Trump and Joe Biden are conspiring together to stage a coup to take over the government. Are you saying this conspiracy theory is therefore true because a man was willing to die over it?

Forgive me, but it sounds like you’re not aware of the hundreds of characters from history that have been partially or entirely mythologized over the centuries. Characters who had special connections to the gods, who performed miracles as or through gods, who were believed in and worshiped by millions before our time and even today. What about even just *other modern religions* and gurus? My point is, Jesus is a single entity in a literal sea of divine and mystical characters over recorded history, and god knows how many in pre-history. You’re going to have to make a better case for his exceptionalism that doesn’t also include dozens of other characters you don’t give a second thought to.

What does what people believe have to do with the truth? People believed in witchcraft. People believed Richard Nixon was a good guy. People believed Trump was going to “make America great again.” People believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. People believed that tobacco was harmless and it was ok to drink alcohol while pregnant. People believed Joseph Smith found gold plates from god in his backyard, even though they knew he was a notorious con man. Saying a lot of people believe a thing is a really bad argument to try and show that thing is actually true. By and large people are morons and are actually much easier to convince of nonsense in large groups than as individuals.

Use that exact same argument but replace "Jesus" with "Allah" or "Aryan superiority". Now what have you got?

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? I can't parse this sentence. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? Who died **for him**? As far as I know there is zero evidence that anyone died **for** Jesus. >it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… Who says they knew it was a lie? Who says they died for their beliefs? >So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. were they hoodwinked? (Very unlikely) Specifically which people are you talking about? The ones that thought Jesus was the Messiah lived decades after Jesus. >since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles… We have no firsthand accounts of anyone claiming they saw Jesus perform miracles. >Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? Who is claiming this? >And that Christ happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? ( Where are you coming up with this stuff? >. I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. You didn't make any points, you just spouted a bunch of nonsense arguing against strawman positions. You should read up on modem scholarship.

>Jesus Christ is God Oh no he isn’t. >You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person Oh no he wasn’t. It’s plausible he was not *proven*. >who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? Huh? >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? As far as I’m aware we have vaguely independent , contemporary evidence for *one* follower dying. And why not. People die for religion and for other false beliefs pretty ,icu constantly around the world. >I find that to be a very unlikely possibility.. Because you already believe and seek ways to convince yourself that an emotional choice is a reasonable one. >it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… What a load of bollocks. Firstly where is your source for this. I’m pretty sure Joseph Smith was someone who knew he was a conman but died for it. But it’s hardly surprising when conmen die in the pursuit of a con. But who cares since Secondly no one is saying that Christians don’t genuinely believe. >So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. were they hoodwinked? Yes. >(Very unlikely) Reality and any knowledge of history and world events says otherwise. Unless you think a space ship was really following a comet as per Heavens Gate. Etc etc >since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles… We have no contemporary eye witness accounts of Jesus performing miracles so how could we have any of such people then being martyred? >u can argue that these are disingenuous… Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? And that Christ happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? People are gullible. And superstitious. It’s not a surprise. And I’m sure you actually think that everyone else’s religions are not true despite people dying for them, claiming they are, and not being schizophrenic. >(ALSO INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY).. You keep saying these words - I do not think they mean what I think they mean. This is just an argument form incredulity. Your lack of reason in evaluating the unknown odds of things happening ( and actually contrary to everything which actually know about human flaws and society) isn’t convincing to anyone who unlike you doesn’t already believe. >I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. Yes you do don’t you. It’s kind of sad. >if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. Let’s be honest , nothing is going to change your mind. Your argument comes down to people won’t die for false beliefs ( though we don’t even know exactly what they believed or how they died). It’s really not very convincing.

He was a real person. We have zero evidence over any level of supernatural claims. If you want to think that a story is true you may. I sure as hell won't.

> Jesus Christ is God Nah. Probably not. > You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? Yep. > And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? Kinda. Some of the myths were likely developed by the 3 people we knew were martyred (the rest of the martyrs are actually just church tradition / myth too) but also much of the myths came about after and were developed over time. > I find that to be a very unlikely possibility.. K. I find it very unlikely that god sent his son, who is also himself, to earth to die for the sins of all humans when the god could have just willed forgiveness instead. I find it unlikely that a transcendent omnipotent god needs a blood sacrifice for anything at all. But that’s what you believe. > it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie…. Citation needed. > So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. People are wrong all the time. > were they hoodwinked? Yes. > (Very unlikely) since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles… We only have writings from Paul who never met Jesus. The gospels are from anonymous sources written at least 30 years after Jesus died. > u can argue that these are disingenuous… Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? They could just be wrong. Maybe someone had a grief hallucination and then others via other cognitive biases thought they had encounters or memories they didn’t have. We have evidence for hallucinations & false memories…not for dying and rising humans or god. > And that Christ happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? You said it. Not me. > (ALSO INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY).. But Jesus is god is likely. Lol. Sure. > I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. You didn’t make any points. You expressed incredulity. > if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. People are wrong all the time. These people were wrong. Did that work?

If Jesus Christ was god then he wasn’t human. Humans cannot perform miracles. Humans cannot resurrect themselves. Humans do not have a god as a biological parent. The Christian god cannot die. The Christian god cannot suffer. And the Christian god cannot sacrifice anything. If you want to claim that the Christian god can die, suffer or sacrifice then he cannot be omnipotent. This is why feeling sorry for whatever happened to Jesus, the god, is a joke. If you want to feel sorry for someone, how about a child dying of cancer, begging for your god’s help, only to be handed a body bag instead.

I'm telling you? I'm not telling you anything. You're telling me. And since you're telling me, it's up to you to prove it. And you're going to have to do better than offer us [Lewis' Trilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma). It has already been comprehensively countered.

> it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… They believe its true doesnt means that its true. Ppl were willing to die and did committed suicide in heaven's gate, does that makes it true? When is the first gospel written? When is the first evidence of jesus miracle written?

Jesus is not a sacrificial lamb he was just an ordinary Jewish man. You are not a sinner and you do not need god.

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? Youre telling me that Pharoah Tutenkhamin, who was DEFINITELY a real person, as we still have his body, which is more than we have for Jesus, he actually lived, and there was an entire society that thought he was the living incantation of the god Aten, and that was all a lie??? By any argument you make about Jesus being God, King Tut has a stronger case.

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie? A myth is not a lie. A myth is a story that people share and that spreads and becomes popular and sometimes even becomes believed by many people. No part of that is a lie; it is just that people can become convinced of stories which are not true, even without anyone trying to deceive anyone. It only becomes a lie when someone claims to know it is true, even though they clearly do not actually know it. Believing is not knowing. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? What makes you think that the myth was not created by Jesus? If Jesus was like most other cult leaders, then Jesus is the one who started these stories and Jesus is the one who raised himself to supernatural status. >I find that to be a very unlikely possibility. Why? That sort of self-destructive behavior is not unheard of among fanatically religious people. People have literally strapped bombs to themselves and blown themselves to pieces. >It has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie. What reason do we have to suspect that they knew it was a lie? >Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? And that Christ happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? Cult members are not usually schizophrenic. Cult members just have a need to believe that they are special and they are important. They are happy to be a part of something bigger than themselves and are willing to be convinced of whatever is necessary in order to fit in. If the cult declares that they saw their leader walking on water, the members are going to convince themselves that they saw it, because otherwise they will be rejected by the close community that they are totally dependent upon. This is not to say that a schizophrenic cannot be a cult member, but schizophrenia would likely create challenges that make it more difficult to fit in with the cult. >I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth. What makes you think so?

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? When was he proven to be a real person? >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? I find that to be a very unlikely possibility..  You should read up on Scientology. >Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? No, I think most of us are claiming these people are fictional. > I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth. As the Scientologists would say (you did read up on them, right?) you have a misunderstanding on the word "truth".

>.. were they hoodwinked? (Very unlikely) Yes, I suspect they were hoodwinked (Very likely) > I find that to be a very unlikely possibility That's your personal incredulity > it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… Even if true, that doesn't get us very far - people have taken their own lives and died for things they believe to be true but which have been proven to be (or are known to be) untrue. Them dying does not make the thing they chose to die for true. >I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth For you, yes. Probably not for many others.

>a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived So am I And yet, somehow, I am still not my own son Crazy, I know >same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? Who said the people who were killed by the Romans were the people who created the myths? >ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. were they hoodwinked? Nope. ALL of the *other* people were sentenced to death for heresy. So everything they believed was true, right? The height of Christianity: dictatorship over the entirety of Europe for over a thousand years

Please cite your proof from psychologists that people will not die for a lie. It should be easy to cite the peer reviewed paper thst you refer to.

>And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? Have you ever heard of a cult? People die over lies every day. Christianity isn't special or exempt from that. >were they hoodwinked? Again, have you ever heard of a cult? >if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. I've got a pretty strong feeling that nothing anyone says on this post will actually matter. Not because of the strength of your faith, but your unwillingness to consider conflicting viewpoints. Too much is potentially riding on the line. Giving up Christianity means giving up potentially friends and family, community, probably income if you run a church or do anything church related or make money off of your beliefs, or just have job connections through people you met at church. And it means giving up a lot of comforting beliefs. Experience tells me that you'll block or ignore anyone who says anything you find too complicated to engage with, or will engage dishonestly. At some point, you'll issue arguments that you find convincing as a believer, get mad when they don't land, and then leave. Or given your karma, that you're just dropping this and leaving so that you don't have to engage. The point was to antagonize rather than debate. But I'm no fortune-teller. So if you're actually being intellectually honest and deserving of the benefit of the doubt, what would change your mind, exactly? It's kind of hard to meet an evidentiary standard flying in the dark.

>Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? And that Christ happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? (ALSO INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY) schizophrenic people have been proven to exist. They did also in the past where the reason for their strange behaviour could often only be explained through ether the hand of the devil or divine intervention. There have been multiple cults where one person had managed convince dozens or even hundreds of people that they're directly instructed from god or even god himself. INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY however is that some magical never observed being is somehow through not explainable processes responsible for an event we do not have direct credible sources for and that have through lived hundreds of years of oral retelling and imprints of multiple cultures. This begin has not been proven to exist one single time by but the slightest actuall scientific research or repeatable measurement. And that (nonexistent) thing is suddenly supposed to be responsible for an event we could take dozens of guesses of naturalistic explanations for.

Jesus Christ is not a proven historical figure. To be fair, an individual (or multiple) who the story/religion is based on most likely existed, but the story as told in the Bible is not necessarily historically accurate. His life and teachings as we know them today, may not be accurate to whoever actually existed. We know the religion exists. We know it must have started somewhere. We know many of the people who started it probably believed the claims they were making. These are people who were already inclined to be religious, to accept supernatural claims as legitimate. And one had to accept that countless people have believed in false religions/rumors seriously. non Christian religions, victims of misinformation, cults, etc Christianity is no different. There isn’t much evidence to suggest the any disciples died for the cause. Only 4 or 5 have any historical evidence. And of those, the evidence isn’t super clear. It’s debatable whether they died willingly (alleged martyrdom) or were simply killed for political/religious reasons regardless of whether they could repent or not.

By those very same arguments, you would have to be a Scientologist.  Even if I granted that JC has been proven to exist (I wouldn’t) L Ron Hubbard actually existed, are you saying the supernatural claims about him are just myths? You would also have to be a Rastafarian for the exact same reasons. They all can’t be right.  They can all be wrong.

Hercules is God. You’re telling me that man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived (he hasn’t been, but there is the same evidence for him as there is for Jesus) plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie? And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? I find that to be a very unlikely possibility.. it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… So obviously ALL these people believed that Hercules was the messiah.. were they hoodwinked? (Very unlikely) since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles… u can argue that these are disingenuous… Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? And that Hercules happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? (ALSO INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY).. I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind.

> And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? Claim 1 needs to be proven > I find that to be a very unlikely possibility.. A facilious argument > it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… Claim 2, citation needed > So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. were they hoodwinked? Nope, we only have 2nd hand verisons of these stories, we have no idea what they saw or thought. > Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? Nope, I would claim we don't know what they saw or what they knew. > And that Christ happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? Not sure where you're getting this from? > I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. A few of incredulous statements aren't proving anything.

Proven to be a real person by whom? By what evidence? Where is this real person accurately represented with consistency? Where is it said that the persons who "created the myths" are the same people who wrote the gospels? There is a long gap between alleged even and the writing of the gospels. There is a difference between dying to lie and dying for something you believe to be true, but is wrong. What was the definition of messiah in the days when Jesus was alive compared with the decades following and now? Did these miracles happen? Are they mythologized in hindsight? Are the gospels historical or theological? It seems unlikely that this "man" accomplished these miracles yet NO ONE wrote of them in the time they occurred. I am not here to change your mind, you came here to debate us. If you want to change our minds you will need to support your claims far better.

So do you believe Mohammad is the Prophet? Why not? Genuinely. Real question. Every single argument you've made here could also apply to Siddhartha or Mohammed. But you don't accept those religions...so...why?

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person Actually, historians aren't sure whether these stories are referring to one person or that the stories are about ,ultiple individuals amalgamated into one, but go on. > plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people Yes, because that's what you can call those stories at most: myths. There is zero evidence for any of the miraculous shenanigans these stories claim. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? The willingness to die for something or someone has no bearing on the veracity of what that someone proclaimed. German soldiers were prepared to die for Hitler even after he committed suicide. Suicide bombers are prepared to die for what the Islamic equivalent of Jesus proclaimed. There is really no special claim Christians can make using this argument about their beliefs being "more right" than any other ideology. >it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… Correct. But dying for something you *believe* is not a lie doesn't say anything about its actual veracity. >So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. were they hoodwinked? Yep. I mean, Jesus either utterly failed every condition the Jews expected of a Messiah, or meeting those conditions was clearly fabricated: * **Descendant of David**: The Messiah was expected to be a descendant of King David, from the tribe of Judah, fulfilling the prophecy of the Messiah being from the "house of David" (Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 2 Samuel 7:12-16). The gospels have two different geneaologies for Jesus that are not reconcilable. * **Anointed One**: The term "Messiah" itself means "anointed one." In Jewish tradition, the Messiah was expected to be anointed with oil, symbolizing his divine selection for the role. Since Jesus wasn't the only person to be anointed with oil in Jewish history, this means nothing. * **Bringing Peace and Redemption**: One of the central expectations of the Messiah was to bring about a time of peace and redemption for the Jewish people. This includes the ingathering of the exiles, rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem, and establishing a universal reign of righteousness (Isaiah 2:1-4, Isaiah 11:6-9, Jeremiah 23:5-6). Jesus on the other hand literally said he didn't come to bring peace but the sword, the temple wasn't rebuilt, Jews are still praying at the ruined walls, and we're still waiting on that universal reign of righteousness as well. * **Restoring the Kingdom of Israel**: The Messiah was expected to restore the independent kingdom of Israel and to reign as a king, leading the Jewish people to victory over their enemies (Micah 4:6-8, Zechariah 9:9-10). The UN actually achieved some of that, not Jesus in any way. * **Upholding Torah Observance**: The Messiah was expected to be a righteous leader who would uphold and enforce the Torah (the Jewish law) and promote obedience to its commandments (Isaiah 2:3). Either Christians didn't get that message or they ignored it, since they only accept a small selection of Jewish law to follow (due mainly to Paul, who never met Jesus). * Universal Recognition: In addition to leading the Jewish people, the Messiah was also expected to bring about a universal recognition of God and His sovereignty, with all nations acknowledging and serving the one true God (Isaiah 11:10, Zechariah 14:9). Clearly didn't happen. >since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles… u can argue that these are disingenuous… Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? There are millions of people alive today that claim Satya Sai Baba performed all the types of miracles that Jesus was claimed to have performed. So again, that argument is not unique to Christianity and we actually have living witnesses that claim a different person performed all this stuff too. So are you going to convert to Hinduism now? >And that Christ happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? (ALSO INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY).. We're talking about Iron-age individuals of whom the major majority couldn't read and had no education whatsoever. If a Sci-Fi author in the 20th century could convince people with mandatory education that: * there's an alien called Xenu, * who was the dictator of a galactic confederacy of 76 planets, * who was captured and imprisoned on Earth 75 million years ago * after bringing billions of his people to Earth, * placing them around volcanoes and killing them by using hydrogen bombs Then convincing Iron-Age people you're the son of a deity doesn't strike me as all that hard. >I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth. Nope, in fact everything you have argued can also be argued for a plethora of other mutually incompatible religions.

What is your evidence that the apostles even lived? Or that they were killed? Why they were killed? What if the stories about them are …just stories? I’m not aware of any reliable evidence that they were in fact martyrs.

I think any natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural explanation, yes. Including people being lied to and believing lies. Interestingly, I’m sure you feel the same way about Muslims or Hindus.

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived Jesus christ is Aristotle? because Jesus hasn't been proven to be a real person who actually lived. >plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? I mean...yes A myth is by definition not true. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? Attempted martyrs are a regular occurance in history >it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… Lol, no it hasn't

>Jesus Christ is God >You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived(…) Seems that you and I have different standards for proof. But even then, We can talk about little bit about the standards of proof that you have for almost all in your life… and you will see thar you don’t apply the same to your theological claims. >(…)plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? Is this so hard to imagine? Do you really believe that Remolus and Remus were raised by a wolf? >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life(…) Is absolutely a common thing that people, who get attention because of a story, or a tale, in no time… start changing it, it happened with stories in my family, with friends… not so long after, there are “add ons” to the story… and sometimes they are used in a different context, and most of the times I don’t say nothing about them even when i was there… just because I understand the purpose of a good story to leave a message. > also died for him even after had passed away? There is no way to know “why” this people died, we don’t have the first hand message, because they died, and their stories were used later to prove a point… that they were willing to die for their story. >I find that to be a very unlikely possibility.. it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… Then… you should probably be a muslim and they say that christians will go to hell. People is willing to die for things they **believe** are true. That have nothing to do how true this claims are. >So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. were they hoodwinked? There are many explanations for this: 1. They were people with almost no education. 2. Living in a place and time filled with mystic stories. 3. People tend to believe their lies with little time. 4. When people are reinforced with attention, they tend to attach their personalities to this stories… Just look at the stories of alien’s abductions. >(Very unlikely) since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles… If you read critically and carefully, you will realise that there is **not a single** first hand account of the claims, all were written decades or centuries after the facts, and those who could be first hand witnesses only account for third persons tales. Please, don’t believe what i am saying… read the scholars. >u can argue that these are disingenuous… Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? Not crazy, but maybe some of them were. But yes, they were not educated in the scientific method, they didn’t had a good epistemology, even today you can find people who believe that they or other can speak to dead people, who believe that the relative position of the stars to the earth have influence in their lives, that putting their hands over the body will heal… yes, even educated people believe in silly things. >And that Christ happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? (ALSO INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY).. Actually, many scholars had wrote about this, saying that he never said he was god. >I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. One last point before my conclusion… all the religions in history have used syncretism, meaning, they took stories that were around to build a connection with this tales that were in people’s minds already… Christianism is not an exception but probably one of it’s best examples. I will ask you to think about anything that the mainstream science says today that you don’t believe, and ask yourself what kind of evidence would you like to see before change your mind. Then apply the same rigour to the **most important claim in human history** and see if you match your own standard. I want to believe as many true things and as less false things as I can, and I will not accept the possibility of a supernatural realm, nor supernatural claims, until at least there is a possibility that they can be true. Any answer by natural processes are more likely (actually are the only answers), to be true. I hope OP read my message with honesty and engage in a civilised discussion… if there is any.

So, you also think Joseph Smith was a prophet? And Mohammed? And Israel Ben Eliezer? All of them have far better documented miracles than Jesus, so they obviously must have actually done them, right?

>it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… No it hasn't. Quite the opposite, indeed. In the right circumstances, humans are bizarrely *eager* to die for something which they know is a lie. This is a major part of police procedure, actually -- it's distressingly easy to get people to confess to capital crimes they didn't do and have hard evidence they didn't do. Likewise, Jim Jones and his inner circle faked miracles, we have the receipts for the magicians and actors they used to do so, but still drank poison rather then admit it wasn't true. People are never fully rational, and very often aren't even *partially* rational. People being suicidally irrational for objectively stupid reasons isn't just *possible*, it's extremely common.

Honestly, and not trying to be mean,I don't think I can persuade you because the way you think and the way I think are completely different. I've seen people lie, I've seen people be mistaken, I've seen people be fooled, I've seen people gaslight, I've seen people make up stories. Give me enough time and I could literally think up 100 possibilities more likely than a god that cares about who I have sex with impregnated a fourteen year old girl two thousand years ago with himself to tell us about himself and get us to worship himself.

I suggest that you look into Paul Eins' "Minimal Witnesses" hypothesis. >You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? He proposes that Jesus was a real guy born and raised in Nazareth, and that no one lied about what they knew of Jesus. However, not lying doesn't mean they are telling the truth, only that they are telling the truth as they understand it. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? It's more that as the word spread by word of mouth that details got changed or added. This Abram mentioned to Brin that Jesus was seen after his death, Brin tells Catherine that Jesus was raised from the dead, Catherine tell Doug that he walked out of his grave, Doug tells Enoch that he was raised, Enoch pushes back and asks how they would know, Doug figures that they obviously checked that the grave was empty, Enoch tells Fred that the grave was empty, Fred asks how they knew they had the right place, well it was a tomb, etc. The first mention of the empty tomb is in the gospel of Mark, 40 years after the crucifixion was supposed to have happened. Paul only ever mentions burial. >I find that to be a very unlikely possibility.. it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… Most people, probably, but people can become convinced of strange things all the time. How often do we have people certain that the end of the world is about to happen. How willing to die would such a person be? >So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. were they hoodwinked? The followers of Jesus that are mentioned as involved in any aspect of the Church past the assention is pretty much Peter, John, and James later joined by Paul. This means that of his disciples if the number 12 is to be believed, then 1/6 of them (Peter and John) remained convinced of Jesus's teaching (not necessarily his divinity, but at a minimum his devine favor), one of his several siblings joined them, and then some outsider (Paul) joined the (non-jeruselem) part of the church claiming to have had his own vision of Jesus and pushing a version of the sect that no longer kept kosher. There is good evidence that Peter/James and Paul did NOT agree on this point, but gentiles were easier to convince if they didn't have to mutilate their... well you know, and with kosher law tucked away the gentiles were more amenable to Paul's message than the Jews were to Peter's, so Paul won out over Jesus's disciples. >(Very unlikely) since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles… u can argue that these are disingenuous… Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? Who claimed that Jesus performed miracles? Paul? He claimed that Jesus was raised, what other miracle did Paul attribute to Jesus? His disciples? Maybe, but the first mention of one that I am aware or is in Mark (d+40 years) and there is no mention in the text how "Mark" got these stories. So obviously, someone claimed this, but it could be anyone from Peter himself to some Greek peasant that was arguing if Jesus was better than dionysius at turning water into wine, to the author of "Mark" himself.

Even if I accept that Jesus existed, died, and came back to life... so what? That still doesn't get you even one step closer to proving he's a god. According to the Bible, the following people existed, died, and came back to life: - the daughter of Jairus - an unnamed young man - Lazarus - Dorcas - Eutychus - "many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep" Were they all gods? If not, then it shows that beyond resurrected is not proof of being a god.

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? Jesus has not been convincingly proven to exist as a real person in real life. What you have about him as main source are highly questionable gospels and a few vague mentions in reliable historical sources. And even if there really was such a person you still have really hard time on reconstructing his real biography as he is surrounded by so many fables. So he is either completely mythical like Zeus or mythologized like Nostradamus. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? I find that to be a very unlikely possibility No one died for Jesus only. Early christians were claimed by Roman empire as rebellish extreme law violators, as many of them surely were trying to undermine romanic and even Jewish government. >it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… Christians believers in Jesus divided roughly into four categories back then, and also today: 1. Those who dishonestly claim faith not actually believing themselves for whatever motifs they have. 2. Much more common, those who genuinely believe and are mistaken in their beliefs. Yeah, there were plenty of self-deceptive people throughout whole history convinced in complete lies for a lifetime. Some people willing to stick to a comforting lies than face bothering truth. Some people prefer certain version of answer over uncertainty. That's human nature. Faith is literally "fake it till you make it". People convince themselves and then find some excuses that at the core bound to have faith anyway. >So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. were they hoodwinked? (Very unlikely) Yeah, most of these people were hoodwinked, it is very likely as there is no reputable sources to justify these claims. As early as 4th century CE Porfirius sarcastically asked: If Jesus was the true Messiah wouldn't he show up to Romans also? Why didn't he show to Herod or Pilate? For such questions Porfirius was ostracized by Christian church. Same story with Celsum who questioned divinity of Jesus. >since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles… Claims are not evidence. >Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? And that Christ happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? (ALSO INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY).. There are many sane healthy people that are still vulnerable to all kinds of psychological deceptive phenomenas. >I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. You still lacking sufficient proofs of Jesus's existence, as well as his divinity. You have all the hard work behind you.

I guess you're a Muslim, because people won't fly planes into building for a lie, and them being wrong is incredibly unlikely, right?

Well if martyrdom proves a truth about god then all of the 9/11 hijackers are happily cavorting with 72 virgins in heaven.

You seem passionate about your beliefs. Can you give us a quick rundown on the points you made here. Maybe start with your second paragraph. Give us a rundown of those who knew Jesus, were convinced of his divinity, the circumstances around their death, etc. Also, why did you choose its true or a lie? Shouldn't it be its true, a lie, or people were mistaken?

Please, don't think everyone know what you know and think as you think. Provide evidence for your claim.

>it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie Literally what the fuck are you even talking about. Even something as simple as being shot because you told, say, the nazis, that you didn't know anything disproves this. Let's see these supposed studies

I'm not telling you those things. > human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… This is one of the most persistently ignorant things apologists like to repeat. If they believed it, they wouldn't think it was a lie, would they? People do in fact die for things they're mistaken about.

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person How was this "proven"? >who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? Not sure what you are trying to say. It sounds like you recognize that there are fictional myths associated with Jesus but you are skeptical about additional fictional myths about that person. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? I assume you are talking about people that supposedly knew Jesus prior to his crucifixion becoming martyrs. The evidence for that is incredibly weak unless you are gullible enough to believe everything you read. >So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. FYI early Christianity was a fringe cult that was far more popular outside of Palestine then in Palestine (the place where Jesus supposedly was). I would point out that in modern times people go all in on conspiracy theories (used in the pejorative sense) and other outright nonsense despite having access to the internet to fact check claims. >were they hoodwinked? I don't think the evidence is strong enough to suggest they existed. >since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles… FYI there is not a single eyewitness account of anyone interacting with Jesus preceding the crucifixion. So at best all we have are stories of people claiming other people saw these things. >u can argue that these are disingenuous… Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? I would say we don't have enough evidence to conclude they are actual people. >And that Christ happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? (ALSO INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY).. I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. Like most apologists you assume certain elements of the story are true and use that to try and "prove" other elements of the story are true. If you want to be convincing you need to back up and show that your initial assumptions are true before you start trying to use them to prove other claims. >if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. Do you care if what you believe (think is true) is actually true?

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? Jesus has not been proven to be a real person. The stories about his life could easily be made up, or outright lies, or exaggerated myths, or any number of things. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? The only disciple that died for Jesus according to the Bible is Peter. Even that story is highly doubtful given the circumstances surrounding it. The rest of the disciples death's come from church tradition or other apocryphal texts that the church does not consider trustworthy, except in the discussion of the deaths. Even if these people did die for Jesus, that doesn't make him god. They could have been wrong, or deluded, or maybe they were never given the chance to repent. Christians always claim they could have repented and saved themselves, but we have no evidence that is the case. We have no evidence these people were killed for Jesus at all. Someone dying for something doesn't make that thing true. >So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah.. were they hoodwinked? (Very unlikely) since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles… u can argue that these are disingenuous… Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? And that Christ happened to encounter and convince schizophrenic patients that he was God? (ALSO INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY).. I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth.. if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. Again, that is not true. We don't know that all of these people were killed at all, and we also don't know they were given the chance to repent if they were killed. Not a single one of them claimed to see Jesus perform a miracle. The gospels claim Jesus performed miracles witnessed by many people, but those were written decades after the deaths of the disciples. Not a single person discussed in the gospels was still alive during the time they were authored. You haven't made any points. You have made several dubious claims for which you have no evidence.

A lot of cult / sects members totally believed what their cult leader was saying and would have or even have died for him. This only is a proof that Jesus might have been a very charismatic dude that was able tonconvince people about a lot of things. But no evidence that these claims were real at all

If you point me at any scholar who claims with a hundred percent certainty that **the** historical Jesus has, definitely existed, I will point you at a bad scholar. Additionally, if you point me at a scholar who uses the bible singularly as their reason for making this claim, I'll throw up my hands and vacate the discussion. To the best of my knowledge, and that includes what I have learned from the likes of Bart D. Ehrman and sundry, it can **at best** be said that it is not _improbable_ that a man existed whom, among the many, many people named 'Jesus' (Don't ask me about the local spelling, lol) in that area, in that frame of time preached a relatively new gospel and had a following - \- given that - Microcults weren't exactly rare at the time in the general vicinity of Nazareth and Jerusalem, - People named Jesus, Iesu, Yesu, or whatever variation thereof were pretty common, actually, - And so were street preachers; Logically speaking there exists a not-insignificant chance of overlap between the three. I'm very happy to admit that. But that does not change the fact that *this guy Jesus* cannot in any way, shape or form be claimed to be proven to be the divine son/Avatar of God who *absolutely* performed miracles, prophecies and yadda yadda... I'll be more than happy to admit that we're still reading about what some guy two thousand years ago *is claimed to have said* by those people who over the centuries wrote, copied, cut, pasted and assembled the Bible. But also *This* is why a distinction must be made between historical and biblical - or perhaps for more granular accuracy, capital-D Divine (or, for the nitpickers among us, Theological?) - Jesus and why it cannot be said that capital-D Divine Jesus, as described and attributed supernatural divinity to by the gospels, existed; The Bible offers claims, not evidence, of such divinity.

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? 1. The historicity of Jesus is tenacious enough that it could genuinely be questioned if there was a historical person at all. Saying he was 'proven' to be real is writing a check your butt better be able to cash, because so far all I've heard are people who lived after he supposedly died taking second hand accounts. 2. Even if we grant historicity and he was mythologized later, so what? Alexander the Great has even more evidence of his existence, and there's myths and legends surrounding him. He was posthumously deified. Does that make Alexander the Great God too? >I find that to be a very unlikely possibility.. it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… 1. People very well could die for something they know is a lie. There's plenty of dead soldiers who knew the reasons for war were bullshit but got conscripted anyways. 2. All that's needed is for them to believe it was true even if it wasn't, and you have to agree with me on this, because otherwise how do you explain how Muhammad was able to convince people to fight and die for him as a prophet? >(ALSO INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY) Why tho? >I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth It really didn't, because these are the same talking points that christians have tried to use over and over again. People die for lies all the time. Try to count how many dead Russians there are who were convinced they were liberating Ukraine from nazi occupation. The fact that people can be convinced to die for something is independent of if that thing is actually true.

>And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? I find that to be a very unlikely possibility.. Well of course that's a very unlikely possibility. That's why not many people think that. What more people think is that based on the facts and evidence we have, the myths weren't written down until a good 30 years after the events giving plenty of time for the story to change. And on top of that, the followers of jesus mostly disbanded and are never heard from again in history. Only a few continued the traditions until Paul showed up. >it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… I bet the jews in 1940s Germany would beg to differ >So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah Which people? Which *specifc* people? Name them. >since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles Well no. There are stories that say these people witnessed miracles. We have exactly zero verified first hand reports of the events of jesus life. From the followers of jesus or from 3rd party sources. >Then are u claiming that these people are crazy Not at all >I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth You haven't made any points. You've made claims with zero evidence, and you've asked questions. You've made no points. And it's also fairly obvious you've done little to no digging on the subject, you're relying on what you've heard from preachers and apologists. > if not you’re more than welcome to try and change my mind. I'd rather just update you on the facts and the *actual* ideas that people have. The mischaracterization from apologists is pretty rampant and pretty bad.

Davy Crockett existed. Despite the songs, however, he did *not* kill a bear when he was three years old. Legends and myths arise around people all the time. As for the followers of Jesus, we know almost nothing of what happened to them. All we have are rumors of a guy who knows a guy who knows someone else who claims this apostle or that was killed for preaching Jesus in some far away place. Problem is, when we go check the records of said far away place... nothing. No record of this event. It's just a rumor. We have, I think, *three* people where there's decent attestation that they were killed. But the thing is, the Romans weren't nice people there were no threats, no chances to recant, it was purely "You've been doing this, now we're executing you". People who *can recant* their lies to *save their lives* may do so, but those who are dead either way... it doesn't matter. If you find out later on that your lie-spreading is about to get you killed whether you stop lying or not, why bother stopping? Almost none of the gospels are written by eyewitnesses, and the only one that is doesn't even claim to have seen, for himself, a bodily risen Jesus, just a vision with sound, and those near him only claim (after having travelled with him for miles after the event, hearing him talk about this forever) to have seen a glow. Easily could be a psychotic break, perhaps combined with some sort of trigger like ball-lightning or swamp gas. [Possible Jesus Explanation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsY_UjtNBw8) [Why Gospel Authorship CANNOT Be Correct](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svgM9Q84AFU)

I know, right? Like, Arthur totally rocked England with that magic sword! I mean, stories that start out with potentially real historic individuals *never* get exaggerated over time with successive retellings! /s

Believing something is true and knowing something is a lie are two extremely different things. Also, many religions have had people die for them. People do outrageous things based on what they believe to be true.

>it has been proven by psychologists that people are not willing to die for something that they know is lie Have you ever considered that they DIDN'T know it was a lie? People believe false things all the time.

>it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… I call bullshit on this. Citation needed, but I suspect you made this up.

1) there is no real evidence that jesus the jesus depicted in the bible existed at all. It could have existed, it could be a complete fabrication, or it could be an amalgamation of people. There is no evidence in favor of any of those. 2) do you know joseph smith? The creator of mormonism? A liar and conman that died trying to protect his lies? 3) we don't have evidence of almost any of the supposed martyrs. If I remember correctly, only of paul, that he even claimed to never know jesus. So he couldn't have known. 4) we have on this day and age, with all our technology and capabilities to verify any infoemation, people believing crazy and impossible things dying for them. Like cults, anti vax, etc etc. This is something common. People can believe any random stuff without evidence and die for it. Even the perpetrators of those lies sometimes die for them. Its something extremely mundane. So.. no, there is no reason to believe in any of this. Even if we accepted everything, that doesn't arrive on god, that arrive on "this crazy people really believed it" and from there, again, the most common explanation is that they are crazy. If you want to prove your god, first come with a scientific model that allows for the existence of a well defined god, and then, come with the mountains of evidence that we would require proving this particular gods existence.

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived Not proven, but I'll grant you that a teacher with his name very likely lived. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him even after had passed away? Well no, different people. We really don't know who wrote any of the Gospels, for example, so there's no real reason to believe they did or didn't martyr themselves. Are there instances of people whose authorship of firsthand experiences with Jesus has been compellingly demonstrated? And if so, have these people martyred themselves? I'm not aware of any, but I'm certainly open to the possibility that there are some. That said, if we can find examples of people of other faiths, who martyred themselves after seeing miracles that "proved" a religion other than Christianity, would that lead you to concede your argument doesn't work? >it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… I mean, are you sure? Most people won't, sure. But are you saying psychologists have proven that people cannot convince themselves of something that they previously knew to be untrue, to the point they'd be willing to die for it? If so, could you link to that proof?

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? I'm not. Here's a tip for you: Don't tell me what I'm saying--ask me. >And that these same people created these "myths" around his life also died for him We have no idea how any of them died. Not one. >So obviously ALL these people believed that Jesus was the messiah. A few did, yes. Of course, the great majority did not. Were they hoodwinked? > since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles… What people? No one who ever laid eyes on the guy thought to write anything down. Not one of them. >Then are u claiming that these people are crazy? Again, what people are you talking about? Are you under the impression that the gospels were written by the apostles? I'm sorry; you've been lied to. I wonder what else they lied to you about? > I think that the points I’ve made alone almost proves him to be the truth..  They would be more persuasive if they were based in fact. Now that (I hope) you've learned that they aren't, does it have any effect on your belief? btw, if you doubt anything I say, just ask and I'll provide supporting cites from neutral, scholarly sources.

> it has been proven by psychologists that human beings are not willing to die for something which they know is a lie… Human behavior is more complex than that. Strong believers often double down a belief to cope with disconfirmation.  The Heaven's Gate, for example, believed their founders would ascend in a UFO in the material body. However, one of fhe founders, Bonnie Nettles, died of cancer. The cult then convinced themselves the belief had always been that you needed to die to ascend, and 39 people ended up committing suicide. The story is remarkably similar to the Jesus narrative. The Messiah was prophesied to be a wordly priest-king. However, Jesus ended up on the cross, and suddenly that was a plan all along, guys. > since these people claimed to have seen this man perform miracles Who did? Where are the eyewitness accounts? Mark was written some 60 years after the alleged lifetime of Jesus, in Greek. In the gospels, there are public figures, like a centurion, calling on Jesus for help. Where are the records, the commemorative stellae?

Show me the proof that he was a real person. Reputable contemporary sources. Not priests and other religious people writing about him with biases.

You're telling me that Zeus, King of the Gods, is a myth? What about all the people who worshipped him in ancient Greece? Were they all insane?

Strange that nobody bothered to mention this until nearly a century after he supposedly died, don't you think?

Somehow the Roman’s who were prolific book keepers never mention Jesus until a hundred years later when they had a Jew compile information about a cult that was worshipping a demigod named Jesus. That’s the first ‘proof he existed that wasn’t from one of the members of the religion that was profiting from it. People die for things they believe all the time, people died for Odin, is Odin real? Most atheists are fine with an apocalyptic rabbi existing around that time, a bunch did. But there still is no proof of magic or gods. You still haven’t proven that, or even the need for it. Why was there a need for Jesus? And don’t tell me about critical sin, that’s just referencing the source material to make corrections. What is the real need for a god named Jesus.

The human brain is so complex and interesting, people get stuck on believing lies all the time and our human nature is to be stubborn and not give up. You've probably met a person who claims to be ugly despite you thinking they are a very good looking person and no matter how many times you tell them they still believe they are ugly. It's possible to believe so strongly in a lie that you'd risk your life on it, some people go to those extremes, it doesn't mean what they believe is truth though. If that was the case then people who died for the Muslim faith, Jewish faith, Bhuddist faith, Hindu faith, etc. must all be believing the truth. That is contradictory and doesn't work, just because someone dies for what they believe in doesn't mean they believed truth.

Psychologists have shown no such thing. Just the opposite. People die for lies all the time. Stop lying. And yes, I have a degree in psychology. The disciples (if they even existed) were (according to the bible) shocked when Jesus died and didn't recognize him when he supposedly came back to life. More than likely, they made up the story of the resurrection so they didn't look bad. Jesus was put in the tomb right before passover, so he wasn't able to have a proper buiral. The "empty" tomb wasn't dicovered until dawn. Thus, what happened was in order to have passover, Jesus was placed in a temporary tomb. Then someone came the night after passover and gave him a proper Jewish burial. That is why the tomb was empty in the morning. Christianity is one big lie.

>You’re telling me that a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived plus a myth has a supposed myth created by other people about his life is a lie?? I don't understand the question. I am saying no one who has died, has survived.  Yes, there are a few stories from two thousand years ago of people who heard or read that people at some point claimed to have seen Jesus alive after he died. I think it's more likely that these accounts are mistaken or lies than a god resurrected a person.  There are no accounts from within a hundred years of the execution of Jesus of Nazareth, of anyone being killed because they would not admit their claim to have witnessed a risen Jesus was a lie. 

Sir, Buddhist monks also self-mummified for their beliefs, Heaven's Gate had a bunch of people die for it too. If Christianity is true, they all died for false beliefs. At most, we're just going one step further and realizing there's no reason to believe that one Jew from nazareth was the son of God. Especially since other Jews dispute how he "fulfills" the prophecy. You're basically trying to say in this post "you're telling me that a bunch of stupid people did a series of stupid events? No, preposterous, clearly one of them was a wizard!"

Trump is a real person, and there are actual people who think he is somehow amking some kind of sacrifice for them. They spread around memes of him with big muscles and fighting in battles and all kinds of nonsense. In reality, he’s a narcissistic conman. After he dies, there will be all kinds of people saying fantastic BS about him because they are in a cult. Jesus was no different.

Literally *any* explanation that doesn’t invoke a miracle is more likely than one that does, because we know those explanations are *possible*, however unlikely, and we have no evidence that miracles are possible. You’d have to demonstrate that a miracle is possible first before admitting any miracles as potential explanations for historical events.

>2. The early Christians died for a claim where they were in a position to know whether it was true or false. How many early Christians who died in religious persecutions had witnessed Jesus's death and then observed him alive again afterward? The answer is effectively zero, the timing doesn't work out.

Naw, I’m telling you that Jesus the miracle working son of god is primarily the fictional creation of the author of Mark who never knew him and was making it all up 40 years later. There’s not a shred of credible evidence that any story in the NT was written by anyone who ever met Jesus.

There are people that believe & would die for John of God. There are people THAT DID DIE & others that got out & WISHED THEY DIED for David Koresh. There are people that drank poison kool aide with … ugh are really so stupid ???????

Even if Jesus *was* a real person, I believe that he is now dead and that all the so-called miracles *are* just mythological tales. Not a god, not even the Jewish messiah, just some burned bones in a Roman mass grave now.

Why does the actual existence matter? If Jesus is manufactured vs material has no bearing on a good message. As far as his God status. Common. I’ve been god twice.

You were the one hoodwinked. If truly believed this was convincing, then go apply this line of reasoning to other supernatural claims. Or you can stop being gullible.

>a man who was proven to be a real person who actually lived Proven? I await this proof. Remember, consensus isn't proof.