After Christ's death persecutions of christians began, christians were forced by romans to leave their faith and reject Christ, but so many of them didnt reject Him and stayed with christianity. So you think that people who weren't sure about their belief would give their life for that?
Well again if its true does this prove that the Bible is right? For example, the early followers of Jesus could have been persecuted for saying that Jesus went to heaven and was raised by God, this could mean that he was killed and raised i.e. christian belief now or the Muslim belief that he did not die at all, eitherway it poses a thread to the authorities.
But even so, a person giving his life up for a belief does not neccesitate that he is right, a person could truly believe and feel sure, but he could be sincerly wrong.
I know that Gospels of John,Luke, Mathew and Marc were written some time (30, 40, or 50 years) after Christ's death, but still its interesting that all 4 of them agree in most fundamental things for christians - that Jesus Christ died on a cross for our sins and after that ressurected,and that He raised Lazarus from dead, that he gave sight to a blindman, that he multiplied food, that He walked on water..
Well again this could be impressive, but when you take into account the compilation of the four Gospels, for example, let us take the SYPNOTIC I think they are reffered to, due to their similarity, you only have to research to find out that Mark was first written and that it is plausible that Matthew and Luke had a copy of mark and along this also had Source Q for Quelle, a common source which they used, so this would explain all the similarities.
What I find interesting though is that you claim they all agree but in reality the Gospel of John is in a league of it's own! And that is something that not I, Eesa, say but go and check what Christian scholars say and see if they agree.
But as for they all agreeing on the main things, again, this is not entirely true, for example, the Gospel according to Mark that we have now had no resurection story, the Gospel ended upbruptly, at where he said that the Women did not tell anyone anything, the story furthering on is a later addition. And noone knows what the real ending to Mark was. So mark isnt in agreement, he stops short of the glory of the resurection, but then we have three other Gospels, three other Gospels are not much, specially due to the fact that the Gospel Paul preached had been wide spread too so this would have influenced the writers, and it would have been illogical for the dominating congragation to enter in make famous Gospels which spoke of a different ending out of all the Gospels there.
What we do find interesting though is that even within the narratives about the resurection there are discrepencies.
How is it possible that people would give their lives for something that they are not sure?
A person can be sincerly wrong, they can believe till they are blue in the face, I am sure of Islam at the same time I am kind of sure someone else is sure of christianity, yet both of us would die for it.
How is it possible that roman ancient historician, Tacitus, and also Joseph Flavius wrote about Christ' death on a cross and that many people believed that He ressurected?
I have yet to see such writings, what I have seen is what seemed to be a later interpolation in the name of a Jewish Historian, Josephes or something, and I also saw a discription of what some christians believed someone resurected.
Regards,
Eesa
