RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

IF Jesus rose, then this validates everything else He said to be true.Jesus predicted His death and resurrection, and guess what, IF it is true then Jesus is the most remarkable figure in all of history.Included in everything else He said was His validation of the Septuagint, which, of course, contained Genesis. The Bible clearly reveals that there are only two sources - God or Satan.What about those Natives you mentioned ? Unless they can prove their god is alive then one can only speculate as to the origin.There are witch doctors in Haiti and Africa that can do things that would disturb your mind - they admit their source. The supernatural exists and the Bible is the best source to explain it.

It is certainly evidence.But, the evidence I offered has a simple clear point. 11 losers became 11 men of iron who turned the world upside down. This point evidences the claim of Resurrection and its ability to change a person miraculously.

Willowtree,You continue to claim the martyrdom of the apostles. You continue to claim Strewn across N.T. geography are hundreds of sites that claim by tradition, legend, archival records, architecture, inscriptions, of the apostles/disciples presence. There are tens of thousands of books writtten about the apostles/disciples. Yet you have not given us reference to even one of these sourses. I'm not trying to argue that the various martyrdoms never occured. But I'll be damned if I'll accept that they did without somekind of reference. I have never found anything that stated more than "by tradition" or "it is said..".Please, just toss me a FEW of these hundreds of sites.You asked me before what I wanted. I want some kind of primary sourse that discusses the martyrdom of the apostles. Some of the "traditions" I have found were so outlandish that they basically said "this person died in one of four common ways somewhere in the known world". By the way, I truly appreciate being called dishonest, stupid and uneducated.[This message has been edited by Asgara, 03-09-2004]

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

I never argue by website linkage - any fool can create a web page.Go to any library for books about the apostles, or any bookstore, or I guess you can search your subject at http://www.capstonebooks.comBooks:"Who Moved the Stone ? " Frank Morison"Evidence that Demands a Verdict Vol.1 and Vol.2 " Josh McDowell"Sherlock's Tryal (intentional misspelling) of the Witnesses" Bishop SherlockJesus Christ : Super Nut or Super Natural ? (6 volumes) Dr. Gene ScottOr go to Pastor Melissa Scott presents Dr. Gene Scott - The Official Site and utilize your media player abilities and choose from thousands of hours of teaching listed in archives/instant listening.I know you are no fan of Dr. Scott, but if you want to learn the whole field/gestalt of any historical religious subject then this source is priceless - the epitome of objectivity, and when he takes a position he tells you straight out.

I truly didn't intend to call you any of those things. It was meant as a general point. Really, I don't even know you.

WT,I have read exerpts from some of the books you reference. I will get each and read it when I have the time and money. I will note that what I have read concerning these books does not lead me to believe that they are any different then your own apologetics.It might be some time before I have access to these books, so maybe you could list some of the resourses they have used in reference. Surely this shouldn't be too difficult, as I know you wouldn't offer me books that didn't list the references that I asked for.One reference I have seen is Dr. William Steuart McBirnie, in "The Search for the Twelve Apostles". Though he continues to believe as you do, he could find no reference other than "tradition", and conflicting tradition at that. He found not one piece of evidence truly supporting any martyred death and not one piece uncontradicted by another.As for listening to Scott, you are correct, I am no fan. I promise to listen to a few of his sermons if you can point me in a more direct fashion to what I am looking for. One thing I will not do is listen to hours and hours of Gene Scott in an attempt to get my question answered.The sermons of Scott's that I have listened to, make me question whether or not you understand the meaning of objectivity, as that is the last word I would use in reference to Gene Scott sermons.Thank you for qualifying (a bit) your quip on intelligence.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Hello WILLOWTREE,I must confess, I don't understand your position. You claim to be certain that the disciples were martyred. And yet, if you don't know how, where, when and why they were martyred, it is self-evident that you don't know they were martyred.You say you don't argue by link because anyone can say anything on a website. People say alot of different things in books also. And the bottom line is, why would you need to refer someone to a book if you know the answer to the question. And if you don't know the answer to the question, you don't know that the disciples were martyred.So, can you or can you not tell us how, where, when and why each of the disciples were martyred? If you cannot, then you also cannot be certain that they were.As Ned says, "just common sense, isn't it?"Amlodhi

There are many things that "everybody knows" but which are not true or are very doubtful. Truly educated and honest people know that. Clearly you do not and therefore label those who question what "everybody knows" as uneduicated or dishonest when in ffact the reverse is true.If you really have *evidence* that all the apostles were martyred then I suggest that you produce it. And be sure to add evidence that they had the opportunity to recant and save their lives. For instance in the persecution under Nero according to Roman sources Nero simply wanted scapegoats for the great fire in Rome. Religion was not the issue. Tacitus says: http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html
(Book 15 dealing with the events of 62-65 AD).Now let me add that number of sources is NOT the issue. Quality is far more important. And the *existence* of a person is a differnet issue than the events of their lives or deaths. Even Tacitus' reports of Nero are suspect since Tacitus is so clearly hostile to Nero. And of course we know that George Washington was a historical figure while not placing credence in the legend about the cherry tree,For Alexander the Great we have a large amount of archaeological evidence - and cities named Alexandria by him. Just think of what a denial of Alexander's conquests would mean ! Alexander conquered Egypt and Persia and those areas continued to be ruled by his followers and their descendants for long after his death. How do you explain the arrival of Hellenic culture without Alexander ?For Julius Caesar we have ample literary evidence - including his own works. And let us not forget the numismatic evidence - the ocins from his reign.For Paul Revere we have plenty of evidence that he existed - but the usual story of his famous ride is not entirely accurate.
( Allinfoabout.com )Now if you want to see "clowning" how about this : What this says is that if we don't have any credible evidence concerning how they died we have to assume that they were martyed for their report of the Resurrection. Well I'd say that Tacitus' report - since it covers the most likely setting for the death of Peter (and Paul - who was not a witness to the Resurrection at all) - represents evidence as good as any we do have. And the Resurrection is simply not an issue there.If you have credible evidence that they WERE martyred expressly for their report of the Resurrection then I usggest you produce it.So lets start. How and when did John die and what supporting evidence do you have ?

...and if this has already been mentioned, I apologize.Most logical explanation for the Jesus resurrection story--it was a myth borrowed and co-opted from {insert ancient culture here}.Other "coincindences and stuff" in the NT (just to back up co-opted myth hypothesis)--virgin birth and immaculate conception in too many other cultural myths to mention, Mary--Miriam--Miriama--Maia--etc., Jesus is just a Greek translation of Joshua, Jesus story follows other stories from OT, etc.If Jesus was such a criminal, why would the Romans let him be buried when most of the time they just left the crucified person hang on the cross until he/she was either eaten by animals while hanging or eaten by animals after rotting and falling off the cross? Rising on the third day--anyone else in other "pagan" mythologies do this?OK, I'll stop. Thanks.

quote:

---

IF Jesus rose, then this validates everything else He said to be true.

---

Really? Why?

quote:

---

Jesus predicted His death and resurrection, and guess what, IF it is true then Jesus is the most remarkable figure in all of history.

---

No, the Bible says that Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection.You can't use parts of the Bible to validate other parts of the Bible.Your "if" is an enormous one.

quote:

---

Included in everything else He said was His validation of the Septuagint, which, of course, contained Genesis. The Bible clearly reveals that there are only two sources - God or Satan.

---

...so you keep repeating instead of answering my question:Since the proponents of every other religion have only personal opinion as "proof", then which one do I believe?

quote:

---

What about those Natives you mentioned ? Unless they can prove their god is alive then one can only speculate as to the origin.

---

Well, right. They can't prove it, and neither can you.That's my point.

quote:

---

There are witch doctors in Haiti and Africa that can do things that would disturb your mind - they admit their source.

---

Yes, and people used to think that schizophrenia was demon posession, too.Hey, maybe you still do?

quote:

---

The supernatural exists and the Bible is the best source to explain it.

---

What a lovely bald assertion!You still haven't explained to me WHY the Bible is the best source to explain the supernatural.

In order to establish that a person was martyred for maintaining a particular belief, one would need to establish that the person would NOT have been killed had that person recanted his/her belief.Absent that demonstration, the force of the argument that "they died for their beliefs" loses it's power. They might have been killed for being Christians, but I don't think that the killers would have released them had they confessed that their beliefs were false (if they were indeed false). Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

I never said I didn't know where or how each were martyred.

The argument can only go so low as to accomodate everyone -this is what I was told in the evolution debates. It seems religious matters are viewed as something not worthy of strenuous study.The content of your post reveals that you are ignorant in this area.I am not a Sunday School teacher in this debate.You parrot "myth" as established fact - your mind is made up.

WT,If you know where and how each were martyred, then why the run around with the answer? It should be easy to give us this information along with your sources. Please do so.If you do NOT know, then you are playing games here.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

HI WT,Thank you for your reply I appreciate it.Can I just add that my reason for rejecting miracles is not because of my atheist beliefs, it is because of my crtical approach to history writing. This is not a premise that I made up, it is a basic rule of critical history writing that miracles are outside the realms of historical enquiry.There is no historian on the planet who would accept the 8 assumptions that Gene Scott suggests, to uncritically accept anything as a historical 'given' is contrary to modern historical methodologies. It simply wouldn't happen.You may not realise it but Gene Scott is playing the evidence game with loaded dice, he is manipulating the parameters of the enquiry and he is misleading his readers.Historians interpret evidence, they scrutinise their sources in an attempt to test the reliability of that source. As a source, the Gospels are not really that good, they are full of conflicting information and many events are simply untrue, the release of Barabbas for example was wholly impossible. The trials of Jesus were historically impossible as well, so I don't think that the Gospels are great evidence at all.As for the deaths of the Apostles, we still haven't been presented with your evidence for these, but they may have died for what they believed rather than what they knew.Thanks for your reply.Brian.