Primary difference I see is that history doesn't show taoists being systematically eliminated for the Tao Te Ching or Hindus being wiped out because of the Vedas like Christians were for their adherence to Christ and the gospel. To be a Christian meant your life could be taken at any moment.....Christ was both beloved and hated (as were his followers). It's hard for me to buy into the idea that Christians would invent the character of Jesus Christ, fabricate the gospels and then perpetuate that lie by publically testifying about it to all that would hear knowing full well that they could be murdered at any time because of the significant opposition. Now labeling these folks as crazy (from a persepctive of non-belief) could seem reasonable, but also seems convenient.
The "crazy" label, if you can call it a label, was more of a comment on why the "but why would the authors lie?" question by tbombz. The point was that people can make false statements and do so without lying or a motive to lie. So when you tell me "I believe in Jesus and the resurrection" or "Belief in Jesus is required for salvation" I don't think you're lying. I may think you're wrong but that's not the same as lying.
You do raise an interesting point though - why would the early Christians stick by their beliefs even in the face of persecution. People are willing to put up with a lot for their beliefs. Look at any number of cults. One example that sticks out for me is the followers of Harold Camping went through and what they did - some going so far as to spend all their money and go heavily into debt, despite of the whole world laughing at them. Sure, there's a difference: the followers of Camping only faced ridicule, but the point is that people are driven to act consistently with their beliefs.
Additionally, we need to consider that, on historical time scales, any organized persecution didn't last long. In fact, the Romans mostly ignored Christians until roughly around 60AD, after which time they promulgated anti-Christian policies that were, eventually, eliminated by Constantine the Great,
himself a Christian, around 300AD. There's no doubt that Christians died. There's no doubt, even, that some died before 60AD as well as after 300AD. But the fact is that the idea that most people today have that anyone suspected as a Christian was subject to persecution and would have been thrown to the lions, or otherwise disposed of, is historically inaccurate.
Well certainly those that oppose Jesus Christ seek to dismantle him and his story at every turn and cling to anything that may be even slightly suspect. There's no real mystery there. The vast majority of these folks will analysis the minutia, but use that as excuse to never go right to the source in Jesus Christ. Folks are looking for any reason not to do so. I'm not suggesting that anti-Christ folks haven't put forth some very convincing arguments and I'm not calling them liars either. I just believe they're so overcome with suppression of the truth that they refuse to seek to truth from the source. A good portion of Bill Maher's Religulous was dedicated to proving that Jesus Christ was invented or that his story was invented.....pieced together from various mystery religions. Maher introduced a new generation to old arguments and just left out the part that they were debunked.
I found Religulous equal parts funny, insightful and frustrating. I thought Maher (whom I generally dislike) made some great points, but he also made fun of people and only looked at the matter superficially and didn't really try to make a robust case for atheism. Perhaps that criticism is somewhat unfair - it was meant to be a movie after all, not a graduate course in philosophy. But I'd have liked a bit more seriousness from the movie.
John the Apostle has been determined as the author of the Gospel of John, John 1, John 2, John 3 and Revelation. Biblical scholars that are also believers widely hold to this view (some do not...that's fine). And of course those that oppose Christ for the most part deny John the Apostle as author of part or all of it. Not all feel that way. There have been instances in which Richard Carrier disagrees wiht Bart Ehrman. It's fine by me....they can go about fighting amongst themselves.
What?!?
No he hasn't! Most Biblical scholars don't agree that the Apostle John authored revelation. In fact, simply reading the Gospel of John (in the original Greek) and comparing it to the Book of Revelations (again, in the original Greek) is enough to convince most people who have even a moderate command of the language that the two don't share a common author.
If you do have links to any serious analysis that links John the Apostle to the author of the Book of Relevations, please let me know; I'd be very interested in reading it.
