|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Time once again, to try to crush out a dubious humor diversion.
Be nice now. Adminnemooseus Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to Change in Moderation? or too fast closure of threads |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I am very glad to see Admin, thank you for your much needed attention in this debate.
I am disappointed that the "message" of your post preliminarily sides with my opponents. Maybe I can change your mind. Previously, in this debate, I said that in evolution debates whatever I argued was immediately responded to/challenged/refuted(?). But in this debate, starting in Post 37, and repeated in posts 45, 59, 77, 101, and 126, was a specific challenge for anyone to produce ONE shred of evidence that contradicted the claim that the apostles/disciples did not die horribly, alone, for the report of the Resurrection. Thus far not one person has been able to produce that ONE piece of evidence. The collective educated body of my opponents can instantly produce contrary evidence in other topics but when challenged to do so here no one can even produce ONE shred. Everything said thus far I have (past tense) argued to be in itself evidence supporting my claim that the apostles/disciples died, alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection. The challenge stands and has yet to be tarnished in any way. The preceding evidence ALSO resides on the following foundations : That the evidence of martyrdom varies, some sources disagree about locations and methods of death, and of course the dates. But the point is the common denominators; which are, that all the sources agree that the apostles/disciples died alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection. This claimed fact was posted in posts 37, and 45, and 59, and 101. Thus far none of my opponents have offered any contrary evidence, in fact this particular evidence has been completely ignored. Post 59 and Post 77 : In post 59 I tossed out three famous names and challenged how we know they existed. In post 77 debater took bait and immediately posted evidence. My point here was that this educated person could evidence three famous people instantly but he could not offer a shred of evidence against the 14 most famous men of all time and the claims I was making about them. This further evidences the claim of the challenge that zero evidence exists contradicting that the apostles/disciples died alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection. Thus far the debater in question has completely evaded answering the specific lapse evidenced here. Post 62 : 11 losers became 11 men of iron who turned the world upside down. They became winners because of the Resurrection. No debater has offered any explanation of this, much less any evidence to refute the claim. Post 101 and Post 126 : These posts declare as fact that the worldwide climate of New Testament times had zero tolerance for opposing political/religious views/claims, that this atmosphere establishes as fact that those who challenged the status quo were subject to instant death/martyrdom. I even included a comparison to what would happen in certain cities today if the gospel were to be preached in these places. The point is that the apostles/disciples did exactly what I referenced (preached radical new religion in a dangerous climate that often murdered such persons). No debater, as of yet, has offered any evidence (or explanation) to refute this evidence. I must conclude that it does evidence the claim that the apostles died alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection. Again, I only claim the preceding text of evidence to be "pieces of proof supporting the claimed fact". Post 1 : Says eminent Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas identified the checkmate evidence. No debater thus far can offer one single shred of evidence against the messenger or his message. This post also says that it took a man of Ph.D. capabilities three and a half years to review all the Resurrection evidence and he could not find one shred of evidence against the claim. This is why I demand in this particular debate that the claim is fact unless one person can post one shred of evidence (or even an explanation) to the contrary. I am sure explanations will now come - bring them on ! I also admitted that the only reason I posted this topic was to smack the Talibanic atheists in this room/generation with the integrity of a Professor Thomas. Admin. I believe I have provided evidence and its explanation. May I request that you remain silent and allow the debate to proceed ? Whatever you decide, in advance, I support. Thank You. Willowtree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
Willowtree writes:
Yeah, and in just about every OTHER post, you were challenged to present evidence in SUPPORT of your claim.
But in this debate, starting in Post 37, and repeated in posts 45, 59, 77, 101, and 126, was a specific challenge for anyone to produce ONE shred of evidence that contradicted the claim that the apostles/disciples did not die horribly, alone, for the report of the Resurrection. Thus far not one person has been able to produce that ONE piece of evidence.
Yourself being the most obvious individual.
That the evidence of martyrdom varies, some sources disagree about locations and methods of death, and of course the dates. But the point is the common denominators; which are, that all the sources agree that the apostles/disciples died alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection.
Tell me, how are we supposed to believe this when you continually refuse to identify these alleged "sources"? I'm sorry, but we're not just going to take your word for it.
Thus far none of my opponents have offered any contrary evidence, in fact this particular evidence has been completely ignored.
WHAT EVIDENCE?!?!?! All you've done is CLAIM that the evidence exists! PRESENT IT, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!
No debater has offered any explanation of this, much less any evidence to refute the claim.
Why should we bother to refute your claim when youv'e given us no reason to believe that it's factual?
Post 101 and Post 126 : These posts declare as fact that the worldwide climate of New Testament times had zero tolerance for opposing political/religious views/claims, that this atmosphere establishes as fact that those who challenged the status quo were subject to instant death/martyrdom. I even included a comparison to what would happen in certain cities today if the gospel were to be preached in these places.
WT, you really need to realize the vast difference between CLAIMS and EVIDENCE -- they are not, repeat NOT the same. All you have is your own CLAIMS. Show us something else that SUPPORTS them.
Post 1 : Says eminent Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas identified the checkmate evidence.
Which was...?
This post also says that it took a man of Ph.D. capabilities three and a half years to review all the Resurrection evidence and he could not find one shred of evidence against the claim.
So you say. Why should we believe you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5118 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
I thought the members of the Taliban were monotheists who believed in the same god that the Christians and Jews and other Muslims believed in. Don't try to sound witty by referencing the current "enemy" of the "free world". If you have a problem with athiests then pray for them. Isn't that what Christians do?
Also, I am sure Thomas Aquinas said a lot of things. Isn't he the one who said "a woman is a temple built upon a sewer"? Or was that "Saint" Augustine? Or Saint Jizzleslobber!?! Furthermore, can't you think of better evidence than a quote from someone with obvious confirmational bias? That would be like saying "David Koresch is god" based on a quote from one of his followers. I still don't see the logic behind using the bible to prove that the stories in the bible are true. And don't cite works by dark age monks and "scholars" whose chief reference was the same book that they were and you are trying to validate. From another realistic standpoint--the physical reserrection of a three day old human corpse does not happen. You can say it was a miracle, but miraculous claims demand miraculous evidence. Where is your miraculous evidence? IF you had presented it already, this thread would not now be at 139 posts!!! Can't anyone produce Roman records about these "martyrs"? How about any ancient record from any non-biased source? How were the Romans unbiased, you ask? Easy, they didn't care what your beliefs were. They killed you if you didn't follow their rules regardless of your personal faith. One last thing--other parts of the bible are clearly in error. The epistles of Paul weren't even written by Paul and it says so in the bible! So, who really wrote Acts? The book as a whole cannot be taken seriously as a historic text. The current version of the bible even runs afoul of the gnostic texts that predate the bible. I am sure other discrepencies would be found if the early church fathers had not burned all the classical knowledge they could get their hands on. Why would they do that? To cover up something!?! This alone should cast doubt on the bible and the unsubstantiated stories associated with its dogma--like the resurrection. I am not saying that people didn't die b/c they professed faith in Christianity, I am just saying that martyrdom does not validate Jesus's "resurrection".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi Hitchy,
In regards to St. Thomas, he was writing isn the 1200's. And the only EVIDENCE he has access to was source documents. He was a man of faith and has no reason to doubt what books he had available. Willow tree is using the writings of a monk who lived in 1200's and although wise and well read did not have any evidence which she claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines says:
I think your point has been challenged. Rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines says:
You are repeating the same argument post after post. While I can't speak for the other moderators, I'm not going to resort to administrative actions to influence you to follow these guidelines, but I don't believe any useful discussion will develop until you do. I would guess that by this time even the Creationist lurkers are asking themselves, "Why is he so reluctant to cite the evidence? Does he not know it? Is it weak? What's going on here?" Others have already adequately addressed the inherent difficulties surrounding negative evidence, which is what you keep requesting. If you're going to simply refuse to acknowledge this reality of inductive logic then I don't think I have any special powers of persuasion that would make me any more likely to convince you. Just so there's no ambiguity, if this were a debate I were moderating, I would long ago have defaulted you for refusing to support your position. It has nothing to do with your position and everything to do with your refusal to actually debate. I, for one, would find an examination of the evidence for apostolic martyrdom fascinating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
But in this debate, starting in Post 37, and repeated in posts 45, 59, 77, 101, and 126, was a specific challenge for anyone to produce ONE shred of evidence that contradicted the claim that the apostles/disciples did not die horribly, alone, for the report of the Resurrection. Willowtree, you cannot get out of supporting a claim by later making a counterclaim. In post 2 of this thread, I called you on making the claim that the apostles all died a horrible martyr's death, alone for their beliefs. I have asked you in several threads about this and you have yet to answer me. post 1 - you make the claimpost 2 - I ask for supporting evidence post 3 to 141 - you say "well you can't prove it wrong" That is NOT how it works and everyone here has been telling you the same thing. You made the existential claim, it is up to you to support it. You say evidence exists for your claim, you claim that you KNOW this evidence...please supply it! Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: WillowTree, no one is claiming that the apostles did not die as martyrs. Since no one is claiming this, it is silly to for anyone to provide evidence for this. You, on the other hand, did make a claim: that the apostles did die as martyrs. Therefore, it is up to you to provide some evidence for your assertian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Your reply will be the next one I respond to AFTER I respond to Admin.
Thanks for your response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
While WillowTree is currently mired in attempts to avoid a discussion based on evidence, I thought I'd pick an Apostle and see what I can find out about what happened to him.
Before picking an Apostle I need a list of the 12 Apostles. Looking about the web I find this list:
There was an Apostle named Bartholomew? I had no idea! Some lists include Matthias who replaced Judas Iscariot. I randomly choose Thaddaeus because that's a really cool name. More accurately, according to Young's Compact Bible Dictionary, he was Judas, son of James, also called Thaddaeus. Young's has no more to say about Thaddaeus. My Britannica lists him under Saint Judas, and says there is some uncertainty concerning whether Judas is the brother or the son of James. It goes on to say, in part:
After Jesus' ascension, Judas' history is unknown. Like the Apostle St. Simon, he seems to have come from the Zealots, the Jewish nationalistic party prior to AD 70. Legends first appearing in the 4th century credit Simon and Judas with missionary work and martyrdom in Persia (noted in the apocryphal Passion of Simon and Jude). Thus, since the 8th century, the Western Church has commemorated them together on October 28. The Greek Orthodox Church, however, distinguishes Judas from Thaddaeus, celebrating Judas, brother of the Lord, on June 19, and Thaddaeus the Apostle on August 21. The devotion to Judas (Jude) as patron of desperate causes began in France and Germany in the late 18th century. I'm a little confused on the part about the Greek Orthodox Church's beliefs. Is this passage saying they believe Judas/Thaddaeus was actually two different people? The apocrypha source about the mission of Simon and Jude in Persia is contradicted by other legends (mentioned widely on the web, e.g., Early Church Missionaries) that Simon's missionary work was actually in Egypt with Mark. Summing up, the evidence for martyrdom of Thaddaeus is legends recounted in later apocrypha. --Percy [text=wheat][Fix syntactic gumbo in next to last para. --Percy][/text] [This message has been edited by Percy, 03-18-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
According to this website, and many others, Matthew died a natural death.
No historical use can be made of the artificial story, in Sanhedrin 43a, that Matthew was condemned to death by a Jewish court (see Laible, Christ in the Talmud, ~i seq.). According to the Gnostic Heracleon, quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 9), Matthew died a natural death. What a martyr. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
So much for Willowtree's asssertion that no one can produce evidence to refute his claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi,
WT obviously hasn't done his homework, I believe all he has done is to parrot his idol Gene Scott. I personally do not study the New Testament very much at all, I much prefer the OT, it is a far superior collection of literature. But to find out that Matthew died a peaceful death took about two minutes. WT really hasn't reserched this at all, which we all suspected of course, as his delaying tactics painfully suggested this. His conclusion about Barabbas as well was shown to be based upon lack of research, he confidently claimed that Barabbas only robbed the Jews so the Romans would not have been that interested in him, but the Bible itself clearly states that Barabbas was a revolutionary. Do you think that WT will alter his conclusion about the Passover release story now that he has been shown that Barabbas was an enemy of Rome? I have my doubts. The whole thread has been a sham, and the sad thing is WT will believe that he is in the right and we have been unfair. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
The supreme claim of my central argument was that the collective body of my opponents could instantly post and refute(?) anything in previous topics, but when I boasted a challenge to produce ONE shred of evidence that contradicted the checkmate evidence - the silence was deafening.
Instead, this specific challenge was treated as if it wasn't made. I find it very interesting that the most important claim of christianity and the challenge to evidence against it was met with the dishonest responses of acting like it wasn't there. This denial went on until your appearance, this is why I repeated the claim/challenge. If a claim is not recognized/acknowledged then should I keep repeating it or just at some point conclude it to be unchallenged fact ? Its my topic, I am running it my way, and I will not have my clear points/agruments ignored. I made a grand point indeed, even the scholarly elements present could not offer anything against the challenge - they could only deny what I was specifically saying and cry foul by invoking the rules. But the point is now moot, a little further up the road I see that scholar has found a "shred". It also becomes even more moot because you too have completely gutted the strength of my point by not recognizing it, which lets all my opponents off of the meat hook they were dangling from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
This is an obvious inducement to debate something that I never agreed.
I did say that the intent of this topic was to smack the atheists of this room/generation with the integrity of a Professor Thomas. By changing the topic title you are also declaring the 8 assumed facts to be facts. (post 1) There will be no debate unless these 8 facts are assumed true. This is the claim of post 1. If not, delete the title amendment and the 8 facts are back on the table.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024