With everything that happened to Jesus, the disciples also sacrificed too much from their lives. Even their own lives were sacrificed in order to tell the world about the teachings of Christ. So does it means that Christ really existed? Aside from his disciples, there are also a lot of early Christians who were killed for the sake of the teachings of Jesus.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
If jesus would have existed he was an enlightened human being with revolutionary ideas,. the are a lots of people whom have become martyrs because they refused to give in
I'm no so sure about the validity of this statement, even if Jesus existed (nobody can truly ever know whether he did or not) then he was under no premise to enlighten us with so called ''revolutionary ideas'' per se.
Well to me, i read the bible like you would any other book, he talks about love, being peaceful, forgiveness and repent, being good to fellow humans, not to be hypocrite, not to be greedy, feed the poor, not to judge, discreetness
I think I am missing your point here, are you trying to say that these things Jesus spoke about in the bible are or are not revolutionary ideas. They don't seem revolutionary but that isn't important either way as they are incredibly important as a whole.
Not who you are responding to, but for the time many of the things Jesus said were revolutionary, like for example when he said in other words, the person who lets one sin is just as guilty if they could have prevented the person from sinning, he actually did this in much better harder to misinterpret way. The golden rule ect ect... Today, the things Jesus said in the bible are not so revolutionary because well a considerable amount of time has passed and have really become more the norm.
They were quite revolutionary for the time. Consider that the reigning doctrine of the land were the laws set forth in the Old Testament. If you want to see liturgical oppression, walk around the Orthodox neighborhoods in New York after sundown on the Sabbath.
Jesus was a complete free lovin' hippie compared to that.
There are lots of martyrs who died in the name of believing to Jesus and for the Catholic church. Some of them were made saints by the Vatican. With all those people who sacrificed, does is mean that Jesus and the bible speaks the truth?
A book published only months ago is calling the stories of Christian martyrdom into question. It's not written by an athiest, but rather by a Catholic scholar at a Catholic university, Notre Dame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_myth_of_persecution
Also, an individual's willingness to die for a belief has no impact on the truthfulness of that belief. Suicide bombers lately are willing to die for a very different religion. The willingness to die only indicates the sincerity of the individual's belief, or perhaps mental instability.
So does the Bible speak truth? Certainly there are parts that are true, and other parts that can be stretched into being "true" by theological gymnastics. But then parts of Hitchhikers' Guide to the Universe are true, but it's not a holy text (sorry Zaphod).
What are you talking about The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is the greatest book ever written and the most holiest of text, LOL.
Anyways, as Written by Douglas Adams the books written about the book by the same title, touches on many points I feel the bible fails to and addresses them in a humorous way. Things such as random probability generators, the meaning of life, and the theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it would instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable along with the other theory which states that this has already happened. It also goes on to explain important things like the superliminal, random probability generators, who created the earth and why, how earth was created and destroyed and how it still here regardless, it explains a real lot of things in a way that delivers the most important lesson in non boring fashion which is, it ultimately does not matter and we are probably better off not knowing.
Myth? The persecution just a myth? How come that they are included in the history not only by the church but by history in general?
The persecution of christians throughout the roman empire was not a myth, one book publisher ''suggesting'' it is a myth is not substantial evidence. There is an absolute abundance of books published describing the history surrounding the persecution.
How about the 12 direct disciples of Christ are they also include in the history? So far, I only know about them in the bible.
John the Baptist is definitely included and recognized by history and historians, also because of him we have direct historical ties to Jesus that stand independent of the bible!
I wasn't aware of this fact, quite a bit about it on wikipedia (I realise this isn't the most reputable source) and definitely worth a read if you have some spare time!
Cool, I will look into it when I have more time later. I just know he was famous for his baptist movement and is recognized by many religions. He also had kept records and Jesus was included in those records it been a long time since I looked into it and I did not think it all that important at the time so I did not take notes it would be hard for me to point you in a good source direction, however Wikipedia does have notes on its sources so if you read something on Wikipedia it will likely tell you if it needs verification or otherwise send you in the direction of better sources.
John the Baptist is known as cousin of Jesus. If he really existed, more likely Jesus existed too.
Did not know John the Baptist was known as a cousin of Jesus. I would like to look into this, I'm a bit surprised I missed this in my studies but it would be greatly appreciated if you could point me in a reliable direction to learn more about this.
Their blood relationship was not mentioned in the bible. It was only said that Mary and John's mother Elizabeth were relatives so the church teaches that John the Baptist and Jesus are second cousins.
John is also the one who baptize Jesus in the Jordan river when he reached 30 years old before starting to preach. He was one of the men closest to Jesus so aside for their blood relationship, they are indeed good friends too.