We know that historical records remain about Jesus (not too many other than the Bible but they're there) as well as that of the early Christians. They were not following a myth or giving up their lives for a myth.
Historical records? What? Let me use a historian to explain this:
3. “Jesus’s crucifixion is historically certain”
Bishop bases this on his assertion that “there are many independent sources that attest to Jesus’ crucifixion.” That assertion is false. Christian apologists are confusing the word “independent” with the word “different.” A hundred
different sources attest to the existence of Hercules. But they are not
independent sources. They all derive, directly or indirectly, from the same
single source, a myth about Hercules. Who never existed.
There is in fact only one explicit source for the historicity of Jesus: the Gospel of Mark. All other sources that mention the crucifixion of Jesus as an event in earth history derive that mention from Mark, either directly (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John; Celsus; Justin; etc.) or indirectly, as Christians simply repeat the same claims in those Gospels, which all embellish and thus derive from that same one Gospel, Mark, and their critics simply believed them because they would have thought it was too self-damning to make up, and because there was no way for them to check.
When
Paul mentions the crucifixion of Jesus, he never places that event on earth. In fact, he doesn’t appear to even know about it having happened at the hands of Romans or Jews at all, but the demonic forces of evil (
OHJ, ch. 11.4, 11.7-8), just as was originally said in the Christian Gospel known as the
Ascension of Isaiah (
OHJ, ch. 3.1).
Tacitus and Josephus
Hence even if they actually mentioned Jesus (and this is actually doubtful:
OHJ, ch. 8.9-10), Tacitus and Josephus are just repeating what Christians told them (or their informants), and those Christians were just repeating what the Gospels told them, and the Gospels are just repeating the story that first appeared in only one place: Mark. That’s not independent evidence. It’s useless.
4. “The Gospels”
“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. See above. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John. The synoptic Problem proves Mark is the source for at least the first 3. Also Mark is 100% fiction. We can get into that.
5. “The disciples’ deaths.”
There are no reliable sources for the disciples’ deaths. We have, at most, some ridiculous and late legends, based on no identifiable sources. We do not in fact know why or when they died. Or what they died for. This whole argument is therefore hosed from
top to bottom.
11. “Paul met Jesus’ brother James, and Jesus’ disciple Peter”
Paul
never mentions anyone being a disciple. The word “disciple” is unknown to Paul. He only knows Peter as an apostle, and only knows apostles as those who received revelations of Jesus (Gal. 1; 1 Cor. 9:1; Rom. 16:25-26). And Paul only ever refers to baptized Christians as brothers of the Lord (Rom. 8:29). He shows no awareness of Jesus having
biological brothers (
OHJ, pp. 108 and ch. 11.10).
18. “Josephus refers to Jesus, twice”
No, he almost certainly did not (
OHJ, ch. 8.9). And even if he did,
he used the Gospels as his source. So he can provide no independent evidence.
19. “Cornelius Tacitus refers to Jesus”
Actually, he probably didn’t (
OHJ, ch. 8.10). And even if he did, he used Christians repeating the Gospels as his source (ibid.). So, he can provide no independent evidence.
This goes on and on with late historical mentions of Christians.
Much of history is lost anyway, and new discoveries are made from time to time about cities or places we never knew about previously. I believe the outline of history in the bible about Jesus.
The gospel outline is a Greek dying/rising savior demigod. This was very popular and comes from Hellenism, as does souls going to Heaven, baptiam, eucharist and most every other change from Judaism to Christianity.
That stuff is 100% mythic and written 100% like a myth.
But the lost history is VERY telling. There is a mysterious blackout period where only by accident (found letters and hidden scripture) do we know anything. This is highly suspicious and clearly much information was erased from history.
There were new discoveries. The lost Gospels showed that Gnosticism was huge which contained completely different beliefs.
You believe the "outline of history in the NT" which is all a myth but don't believe historical information about where all the theology comes from?
They were not following a myth or giving up their lives for a myth
This argument makes no sense. First deaths in the gospels are just stories. But we know for a demonstrable fact that people TODAY and in those times were giving up their lives for other religions? Which were myths? Is Islam true? Do you realize how many have died for the religion?
People following the Gospels are following a myth. What do you think the BILLIONS. of Islamic people are following? Or the Billions of Hindu?? Or the thousands of other religions? People dying for stories doesn't make them real.
Martyrdom was extensively promoted by the
Tongmenghui and the
Kuomintang party in modern China. Revolutionaries who died fighting against the Qing dynasty in the
Xinhai Revolution and throughout the
Republic of China period, furthering the cause of the revolution, were recognized as martyrs.[
citation needed]
Despite the promotion of
ahimsa (non-violence) within
Sanatana Dharma, and there being no concept of martyrdom,
[27] there is the belief of righteous duty (
dharma), where violence is used as a last resort to resolution after all other means have failed. Examples of this are found in the
Mahabharata. Upon completion of their exile, the Pandavas were refused the return of their portion of the kingdom by their cousin Duruyodhana; and following which all means of peace talks by
Krishna,
Vidura and
Sanjaya failed. During the great war which commenced, even
Arjuna was brought down with doubts, e.g., attachment, sorrow, fear. This is where Krishna instructs
Arjuna how to carry out his duty as a righteous
warrior and fight.
Islam[edit]
Shahid originates from the
Quranic Arabic word meaning "witness" and is also used to denote a martyr.
Shahid occurs frequently in the
Quran in the generic sense "witness", but only once in the sense "martyr, one who dies for his faith"; this latter sense acquires wider use in the
hadiths. Islam views a martyr as a man or woman who dies while conducting
jihad, whether on or off the battlefield (see
greater jihad and
lesser jihad).
[28] The concept of the martyr in Islam had been made prominent during the Islamic revolution (1978/79) in Iran and the subsequent Iran-Iraq war, so that the cult of the martyr had a lasting impact on the course of revolution and war.
[29]