RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

Ummm did you just miss the last 10 posts? Do I need to bring up the rectum monkeys again?YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS

WT, has anyone ever told you how exasperating you are?Your challenge is MOOT. The initial question, challenge if you will, was mine. Support your claim or quit making it. You CANNOT get around a request for evidence by twisting it on its ear and saying "You have to prove it's wrong."The initial claim was yours, that all the apostles except John died horrible martyr's deaths, alone for their beliefs.The challenge was mine, what evidence is there for this claim. I can find nothing that lists any primary source, everything talks of "by tradition" or "stories say."I am now asking_one_more_time! What is this "checkmate evidence?" You claim to know it, now produce it.

---

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

Willowtree, I KNEW you were going to whine about the title change. But you know what? It doesn't matter anymore. This does it. You are NOT an honest debator. You are NOT debating in good faith. Do not take this as ad hominem, this is my stated opinion...You are worthless to talk to, your topic is worthless, your idol worship of Gene Scott is laughable, your tactics are deceitful.I retract my question of you...you have no clue of the answer.EDIT: the only deafening silence came from YOU, when everyone else on this thread started making the same request....support or retract.[This message has been edited by Asgara, 03-18-2004]

---

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

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/...heracleon-wace.html"The first passage quoted by Clement bears on an accusation brought against some of the Gnostic sects, that they taught that it was no sin to avoid martyrdom by denying the faith. No exception can be taken to what Heracleon says on this subject. "Men mistake in thinking that the only confession is that made with the voice before the magistrates; there is another confession made in the life and conversation, by faith and works corresponding to the faith. The first confession may be made by a hypocrite: and it is one not required of all; there are many who have never been called on to make it, as for instance Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi [Lebbaeus]; the other confession must be made by all. He who has first confessed in his disposition of heart will confess with the voice also when need shall arise and reason require. Well did Christ use concerning confession the phrase 'in Me' (ean omologhsh en emoi), concerning denial the phrase 'Me.' A man may confess 'Him' with the voice who really denies Him, if he does not confess Him also in action; but those only confess 'in Him' who live in the confession and in corresponding actions. Nay, it is He Whom they embrace and Who dwells in them Who makes confession 'in them'; for 'He cannot deny Himself.' But concerning denial, He did not say whosoever shall deny 'in Me,' but whosoever shall deny 'Me'; for no one that is 'in Him' can deny Him. And the words 'before men' do not mean before unbelievers only, but before Christians and unbelievers alike; before the one by their life and conversation, before the others in words."What is posted above proves that Heracleon was biased against martyrdom.How does Heracleon cancel out every other source about Matthew's martyrdom ?Go to Google and type "St. Matthew Martyrdom"[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 03-18-2004]

1) My title modification was to reflect what was being discussed. An alternative was to try to suppress the off-topic digression, which might include closing the topic.2) Willowtree - You are the one who brought up the "martyr" theme, in
message 1 of this topic:

quote:

---

Now for the checkmate evidence.

​

With the exception of John, all of the disciples died a martyrs death - all for a lie ?

​

Eminent Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas is credited with identifying the single greatest proof of the Resurrection :

​

Not only did they die a martyrs death, they died a horrible death and they died ALONE.

​

Aquinas says "...it is INCONCEIVABLE ..." that they would die a horrible death alone FOR A LIE !

---

I guess that I now REQUEST that all drop any further discussion of martyrdom.Adminnemooseus

Asgara :I officially enter McBirnie's "Search for the Twelve Apostles" into evidence.This source provides the accounts of the apostles martyrdom.Regardless of what you say I will not discontinue the debate with you.I have been tied up answering Admins (plural) and Brian.Remember that the checkmate evidence says they all died alone, horribly for the report of the Resurrection, AND I added that there isn't a shred to contradict. This obviously includes traditions, stories, legends, church records, etc.etc.Brian offers "evidence" against Matthew (finally), which means he also knows of the evidence that claims Matthew was martyred. If he accepts one scrap to rise and be evidence against checkmate, then how does it cancel out the mountain of sources that say otherwise ?I had to wait for someone to post something against, by doing this they cannot now say the evidence for martyrdom to not be evidence/invalid.I have not in the slightest been dishonest.Cannot anyone acknowledge that in a debate forum not one person could post one piece of evidence contradicting martyrdom ? That was my point seeing how everyone always posts against constantly in other topics and this debate was under a specific challenge to do so early on. Thats all.

First off, I would like to say that while I haven't posted here much, I do maintain a healthy interest in the topics addressed on the EvC forum and I read through many of the posts. I have been meaning to post something and this seemed as good a time as any. Willowtree, I have not read McBirnie's book, but I have found reviews and summaries online. One site in particular:The Skeptical Review » Internet Infidelstold how McBirnie himself admitted he could find no evidence. All he had were conflicting stories and traditions. This did not swerve his belief, but it also cannot be called evidence. Oral traditions and stories (especially ones that tell different things) aren't evidence. Many societies have traditions and stories, and we have also been able to show many of them wrong based on evidence. Therefore, traditions alone are not enough. If McBirnie has anything else referenced in his book, I would like to see that posted. Brian posted a site that offered two conflicting stories. Once again, I do not call this "evidence" for or against, but it was just what you asked for. He offered another story that contradicted your claim. Someone offering a differing viewpoint does not validate yours. No one has said the apostles WERE NOT martyred for their beliefs, but no one has shown evidence on either side. This does not make one side more likely than another.

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

It's quite obvious to me the way your "challenge" works. Since there is very little good evidence about how the Apostles died you demand that your opponents produce evidence that doesn't exist while pretending to have evidence yourself - which you refuse to produce - because you don't have it. And you ignore the evidence that IS produced and declare that it does not exist.One dishonest trick and two outright lies.And that is your "checkmate evidence".What more needs to be said ?

It's not entirely true that no evidence has been produced.In post 68 I wrote

quote:

---

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

​

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html
(Book 15 dealing with the events of 62-65 AD).

---

The Neronian persecution is believed to be responsible for the deaths of Peter AND Paul. Tacitus tells us that the issue was the great fire - not Christianity itself and certainly not anything to do with the resurrection as Willowtree claims.Willowtree has ignored this evidence.

WillowTree is the originator of the thread, but the framework of the debate is defined by the Forum Guidelines as enforced by the moderators. WillowTree is not free to structure his own debate here. He is, at present, being permitted a relatively free rein because he is and has been a productive member of our community, but he is still at all times, like all other members here including myself, subject to the Forum Guidelines and to moderator requests.My suggestion to WillowTree is to simply put all evidence pro and con on the table.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Yes, Admin.Willowtree

I do not understand what you are claiming.In this time period christianity was underground because its believers recognized Jesus Christ as God and not the Emperor. Whenever the Emperor felt like it he murdered christians for not proclaiming that he was "LORD".Source : "Apostolic Fathers" translated by Goodspeed (the martyrdom of Polycarp)

Hi, PaulkI know Willowtree has apparently ignored or has not seen some of the posts. I was just pointing out the fact that what got WT to jump (apparently what he was looking for to "substantiate his claim") was not what he seemed to think it was.

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

This post perfectly represents deliberate dishonesty. Never did I say I didn't have evidence or did I pretend - I made a challenge while pointing out that opponents could post instantly in any other topic but suddenly in this thread, when challenged, not a thing. This is a valid point which you do not have the integrity to admit.

I don't see what's so hard to understand. According to TacitusNero's persecution was based on the allegation that the Christians were to blame for the great fire that burnt down a large part of Rome. Peter and Paul were supposedly executed in that persecution, so they were executed for involvement in the fire - either directly or as leaders of the Christian cult which was blamed for the fires.