RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

Hi Ned,A couple of oddballs think there was a fragment of Mark found in Cave 7 at Qumran, it would have to be pre 68 CECarsten Theide champions its authenticity. If you aren't familiar with Theide then try a Google on him, you can probably guess what you'll find.Brian.

When you think about it the caves at Qumran would have been packed full of texts about Jesus if he actually was the Messiah. The whole community at Qumran were waiting on the Messiah, this community was contemporary with Jesus so I find it very suprising that there is nothing at all about Jesus at Qumran.Maybe they missed the earthquakes, the dead walking the streets and the eclipse when Jesus died, shame really.I actually see nothing in the opening post except circular reasoning. 1) Jesus livedSo the Bible says, no contemporaries mention him.2) crucified a) by the Romans
b) instigated by certain Jewish leaders The Bible tells us so, this great event was invisible to everyone else.3) considered deadThe Bible tells us so.4) buried in a known accessible tombAnother Bible bedtime story.5) preached; raised, ascended, and an empty tombBible story to tell the kids when they are feeling sad, like every good fairytale Jesus' one has a happy ending.6) Jewish leaders concerned to disproveAccording to the Bible again.7) persecution of disciples for claiming He raisedMore unsupported assetions, and even if true, do not actually mean that Jersus did rise on Easter sunday.8) empty tomb/Jewish leaders position at stake.Again, another Bible story.8 things that must be assumed as fact in Gene's argument. They have to be assumed because there is not a single shred of proof for ANY of them. Anything can be taken as true if you are gullible to have 8 things about that particular things accepted without question.I could argue that Jesus was actually David Copperfield using a time machine IF my audience were silly enough to take 8 things that I provide as being true without question.Brian.

You haven't provided any evidence, all you have provided is circular reasoning. For example, you say 'instigated by certain Jewish leaders', you have no evidence of this except in the book that tells you the story, this is circular reasoning. If you have to rely on miracles for an historical event, you automatically categorise that event as a myth. How can you use miracles to explain and trye to prove an historical event? Such as? I only apply 'oddball' to people who are clearly oddballs. Am I the only one that considers Theide to be an oddball?Brian.

Yes chip thats the one.Brian.

As far as being historically reliable the Bible has a very poor track record so I treble check (at least) everything that is in it.It is possible that the disciples did lie, Jesus told a few big whoppers, so why should they be any different. But you don't even know if they did die the deaths you said they did. By your own admission, you haven't even researched this. How did Paul die, John Drane told me that Paul either died in prison or was beheaded, so if we are not sure hos the greatest of Christ's champions died why should we trust the sories that other Christians may have made up? Still doesnt make ANYTHING that is written about Him in the Gospels true. Jesus could have been a first century conman for all we know. And two crucifixion sites?What about the tomb in India as well? There is a tradition in India that there is a tomb there with Jesus body inside. He got around. Or indeed IF any of them is the real one.But this evidence is almost entirely the Bible proving that the Bible is true.The inconsistency between the gospel accounts and the impossible historical events surrounding Jesus arrest, trial and crucifixion, make his life story fictional. A bit like an historical novel, like the Braveheart film, an historical character in a fictional story.Brian.

Hi WT This is a basic rule of historical research WT, miracles are outside the realm of historical investigation. As soon as a miracle is required the story becomes myth, this is a fact of historical enquiry. No it isn't. I am saying that miracles are outside the historical investigation. You can write an historical account and attribute certain things to God, but that makes the history false. I know many very intelligent people who believe in miracles. I called Theide an oddball because he is an oddball. Maybe he isnt that silly though, a lot of people buy the books that he writes around insignificant unsupported finds.I must go to bed now WT, thankyou for the discussion and I hope to chat tomorrow.Have a safe and peaceful night.Brian.

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.

Hi WT I am not feigning ignorance here, I have never seen any evidence to support any martyrs death. I did say that St. Paul has been credited with two different deaths they both cannot be true. So, if it is not known for sure how the best know Christian of all time died, why should we believe ‘traditions’ and ad hoc claims about how they died. If you know how and why they died, why are you refusing to inform those of us who are ignorant what the evidence is? I don’t think that this is the problem, the problem is how and why these people died. Their deaths seem of central importance to your argument for the resurrection, yet we are still all ignorant as to how you know the disciples were martyred, why not drag us out of our ignorance by helping us out with some of the evidence you allegedly have? Or the difference between a dishonest professor Thomas and the honest, truth seeking historians?The reason that there is so much revisionism going on is because the Bible is such a mess, it is so unreliable that people feel obliged to try and make sense of its outrageous claims. I need to inform you again that my reason for rejecting miracles has nothing to do with my atheism and everything to do with the methodology of critical historical research. I use the Bible (Old Testament) as a source for recreating an historical past but I treat it in the same was as I treat the Amarna letters, or the Mari texts, or the Anastasi Papyri. A critical historical enquiry cannot include a miracle as an explanation for anything, it may include the BELIEF in a miracle, but the miracle itself is beyond historical enquiry. If you want to call it a moral decision then that is fine with me, as long as you realise that it is done from an honest viewpoint, I am not like these mickey mouse ‘scholars’ you cite who are only interested in misleading people and making a fast buck. You are making the claim WT, you have to support it.Look at it this way:WT: The disciples all died a martyrs death.Brian: Did they, that is very interesting, how do you know this?WT: Well there is no evidence to say they didn’t.Brian: Is there evidence to say they did?WT Yes, tons of it.Brian: Such as?WT: Oh there is so much of it you really must know about it, there is so much I am not even going to tell you what some of it is.
You made the claim WT, it doesn’t matter what I know, the members want to know what YOUR evidence is. Well in regard to the Bible, they revise it because as a representation of actual history the Bible is especially poor as a source, so historians revise it to make sense of it. This is a new one to me. Of course a lot of the conversations in the Gospels are pure fiction because some conversations were not witnessed by anyone. Jesus chat with Pilate for example, who was there to record their words? This is circular reasoning WT. Outside of the Bible, no one noticed Jesus at all. Oh I don’t know, I am sure there are some scholars who said that the apostles were fictional and represented the 12 signs of the zodiac. But maybe not And as any HONEST historian knows, there was no such custom in existence. Funny how it is atheist historians who find out facts such as this, and the Christian scholars are content to continue misleading people. You have to be a little more critical of your sources.I dealt with the Barabbas story here feel free to refute anything in it. I think it is safe to assume that our Bible believing friends would disagree with me in calling the Priviligium Paschale a piece of propaganda, and that they are content that this custom is an established fact. However, I believe that it is fairly easy to prove that this piece of Bible ‘history’ is nothing more than a work of fiction, and sadly, a work of fiction that has had heartbreaking results.

​

The first thing that should send alarm bells ringing is that there is no evidence outside of the Gospels that confirms this custom as happening in Jerusalem or indeed in any other part of the Roman Empire. This doesn’t automatically mean that the Gospels are incorrect, but the evidence against such a practice is overwhelming. I believe that one piece of evidence stands out above all others in regard to the authenticity of this custom, and that is the fact that Josephus is silent about this practice.

​

Anyone who is familiar with Josephus knows that he was particularly enthusiastic about recording all the privileges that the Roman government had given to the Jews, it seems highly unlikely that Josephus would have failed to mention this notable privilege if it had existed (Brandon. p. 259).

​

Surely if there was such a custom, anywhere in the Roman Empire, or even in Jewish tradition, then there would be some record of it? This deafening silence is only one reason why many historians conclude that the Priviligium Paschale is pure fantasy.

​

The custom alluded to is wholly unknown (Montefiore. p.363).
‘There is absolutely no evidence that the pardoning or release of a prisoner had ever occurred, even once, before the time of Pilate’ (Husband. p.111)

​

and

​

There seems to be no instance on record, either from Rome or from the provinces, in which a Roman officer pardoned any person who had been convicted of a crime (Husband. p.112).

​

Also,

​

Now this custom is not attested to anywhere outside of the New Testament, whether in connection with Pilate or in connection with some other governor of Judea (Legasse. p.68).

​

As should be expected, Christian apologists have been plying their trade over this custom in an attempt to justify its historical accuracy. There have been various attempts to uphold the historical veracity of the Gospel accounts, Roman and Jewish records have been ransacked in the search for supporting evidence, but the results of these efforts have been negative (Winter. p.131). Their apparent favourite piece of ‘evidence’ is a reference to a document referred to as Papyrus Florentinus 61.

​

There is evidence in the papyrus that a Roman official in Egypt stopped the scourging of a certain suspect at the population’s request but we do not know whether legal proceedings had already been instituted when the culprit's release was ordered. But this is immaterial since the person in question had not been accused of a capital offence. It is clear that this incident does not reflect a custom similar to the Priviligium Paschale . So I am correct unless I want to change the paramenters of historical research, why should I do that to accommodate the Christian myth? So the entire story is a myth.Brian.

Hi WT, Oh well you better crank up the quality of your posts a little then. I have never ever stated that they did not exist, at no time have I claimed at this discussion board or any other discussion board that the disciples never existed. I did question whether or not there is any evidence for how and why they died, this is the crux of the matter, how did they die, not if they existed or not. You mean why should I have the audacity to ask you to support your claims of martyrdom? This is a basic part of constructing an argument WT, you claim they all died a martyr’s death, yet you do not say why you believe this. But I have never once stated that they did not exist, I am only questioning how you come to the conclusion that they all died a martyr’s death, you have dodged this question throughout the entire thread. I beg to differ, there are many people at the forum here who know a great deal more about the Bible than I do, and they would happily correct me in a non-aggressive way, and I would appreciate their assistance. Show me where I denied the existence of the disciples. What is wrong with that, have you never encountered honesty before? When I see your sources I reckon you probably haven’t. Just think how shocked you will be when you find out how many Christian scholars have revised the Old Testament! You should check out people such as William Albright or Nelson Glueck, two God fearing, bible thumping, Christian ‘archaeologists’ who revised much of the primary history books of the Old Testament. It is not only the atheist that revises the Bible narratives, many Christians have done so as well, there is no escaping that fact that it badly needs revising. I could say the same about the word ‘Christian’, but I wont I would say that the world denying Christian theology has been an abomination to mankind though, Christianity hates truth, Chrsitianity cannot deal with the truth, this is why the Christian fathers debased reason with faith, they rejected the huge advances in history writing by people such as Hecataeus, Herodotus, Thucydides and Polybius, and replaced it with a childlike naivety. The leading historical works were reduced to pagan campfire tales, and the ‘history’ of the Old Testament was taken as the first part of Jesus’ life story, all other histories were rejected, Christianity and reality are at two opposite ends of the spectrum of truth. I don’t hate the God of the Bible, or any other God for that matter, I do not believe in them so why would I waste my time and energy hating them. In fact, I don’t hate anyone, it is contrary to atheist ideology to hate anything. So you will admit that Dr. Scott is subjective as well then? I also still insist that my atheism does not influence my research, the type of research I do is through a critical historical approach to the sources, of which the Bible is only one of many, this type of enquiry does not allow for miracles or divine intervention, I didn’t make up the rules of history writing, I just follow them. My beliefs about Jesus come from my life experiences. My 20 years as a Christian and a great deal of study since that force me to conclude that Jesus was just a man, and not that wise a man. I basically have the same sources that you do, the NT as no one else at the time was aware that Jesus was alive. My opinion of the Gospels is that that are not very reliable at all, they contradict, they are historically inaccurate, they were not written by any eyewitnesses and they include all sorts of logical flaws, they are not reliable. The Q document is a hypothesis, it is used, mainly, to explain the synoptic problem. I got news for you, every document, every artefact has been interpreted, the text has no meaning without context. The problem with this of course is that you never know for certain if your particular interpretation is correct, in fact, no historian would ever claim that their research ‘proves’ anything, every historical theory has the potential to be falsified, if it doesn’t then it is not a true history. Well it is because Christians insists that their particular theology applies to every one, including these atheist scholars, if Christianity sat quietly in the corner and stopped spouting garbage at everyone then it would probably be left alone. The Bible make perfect sense to me, you are the one reading it incorrectly. Hey I know I could be wrong, but I really don’t think I am, I actually don’t really care either. You show the same naivety as the early Christians did. You place your faith in the hands of a few scholars whom you have never seriously questioned. Dr. Scott is leading you a merry dance, you cannot see how he has rigged the enquiry in his favour, I ownder how much money old Scotty boy has made out of gullible Christians. The eight assumptions he insists you take as Gospel, and a world of circular reasoning, is embarrassing. You and Dr. Scott have totally failed to produce a single shred of evidence that any disciple died a martyr’s death. Don’t you think the lack of sources to say that they didn’t die a martyr’s death is because they actually didn’t, or that outside the world of the Bible people couldn’t care less about the disciples? Why would non-Christian historians bother writing about a few docile holy men?If I were you what I would be worried about is the utter lack of evidence to support their martyrdom. If they were so important why didn’t anyone keep a decent record of their lives, why did other Christians have no idea how and why they died, why don’t we know for certain how the most famous Christian of all time, Paul, died? Yes, IF TRUE , none of us know if it is true or not, not even good old beam me up Scotty. But even if these claims are true, it doesn’t prove Jesus rose from the dead, it only suggests that his followers believed he did. I believed in the resurrection of Jesus for around 20 years, but I grew up, I realised that when you get to a certain age you need to stop believing in fairytales, you need to start questioning things, my questions led e to conclude that there never was any resurrection, I had taken the belief in Jesus resurrection on faith, it cannot be taken any other way. If you, or anyone else, has to try and prove the resurrection as an historical event in order to bolster your faith then I have a great deal of pity for you, you have missed the point entirely. I think we all knew that a long long time ago. You are not doing yourself any favour, this is so transparent an excuse that I feel sorry for you. Why not be honest and admit that you have no evidence? Yes, no one noticed him he was insignificant. So you agree that there is no evidence out side of the Bible that supports Jesus ever existing, good, at least we are getting somewhere. But, to use the devil as an excuse is desperation, why not substitute ‘devil’ with ‘don’t know’?Living in a world of demons and gods must be pretty scary WT, maybe you should convert to a more sedate faith, try atheism it is very liberating. I sometimes have to question whether some Christians have ever actually read the Bible, or if they are playing a bluffing game when they come out with blatant lies such as this WT.Open your Bible(s) to Luke 23:18-19 and you findNIV: With one voice they cried out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!" (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) KJV: And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.) ASV: they cried out all together, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: one who for a certain insurrection made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison. And in support John 18:40NIV They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion. So where do you get the idea that Barabbas was someone who only robbed Jews, and that he never commited a crime against Rome? Is this from your Dr. Scott character, if it is then you need to look for a new demigod to worship? Pilate certainly ruled by brutality, he was so brutal that he lost his job over it. In first century Palestine Jews were formidable in comparison to the Roman Empire, why don’t you do some honest research WT, what happened in 69 CE? No it doesn’t and, as shown, your beliefs about Barabbas are incorrect so you maybe need to alter your conclusion about the Passover release myth. The custom actually contradicts EVERYTHING that is know about the Roman Empire, and Pilate in particular. Yes there is, it is only acceptable if you want it to be, with NO supporting evidence you gleefully accept this piece of propaganda, you have nothing at all to support this story. But I didn’t start from this stance. It certainly helps my case a lot more than it helps yours! Yes it is evidence, maybe now we can start to see some of your evidence? Of course you do, it would shatter your delusion to admit that the Bible is incorrect about something. Fair enough, but this makes the stories mythological. The three trials are historically impossible, if you want to use God every time there is a barrier then go ahead, just don’t expect rational thinkers to be as gullible as you. To try and emphasise how important Jesus was, they had to make it up because in reality Jesus was a hopeless example of a messiah. Not a single person witnessed the resurrection, the Bible even tells you that, if you care to read it that is. Mark didn’t even know Jesus, he has no idea what Jesus said. Why not call himself son of Joseph? What is your point? You have answered your own question. Don’t you think it is exactly because that author of Mark knew what it meant that he said this? Because the first one didn’t exist.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 03-14-2004][This message has been edited by Brian, 03-14-2004]

According to this website, and many others, Matthew died a natural death. What a martyr.Brian.

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.

Hi WT, It doesn’t cancel out anything, it does prove, however, that some people did doubt his martyrdom, which negates your claim. Since you haven’t posted any evidence yet, this is a lot stronger than the case you have made thus far.What are the other sources concerning Matthew, are they totally objective and honest claims, or are they from people whose faith would benefit in some way if the apostles died as martyrs?Your other sources, whatever they are, do not automatically negate Heracleon either of course, the bias you claim that makes his testimony doubtful in your eyes, can also be applied to pro-Christian sources, there is no such thing as a bias free historical account. ALL history is a creation of the mind.Do you admit that this proves that your earlier claim that there is no contrary evidence is untrue? Now it doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not, or if Heracleon just made this up, do you agree that it is contrary evidence? Why? We all know there is no proof of his martyrdom, if there were, you would have posted it by now. What you need to do is to start questioning Gene Scott’s propaganda the way we have questioned yours.
I had another quick look at your opening post, if this is what Gene Scott believes then Gene Scott is fairly ignorant of the Bible, in fact, I am shocked that you haven’t noticed some of the horrendous errors he makes.From post 1. Read every book ever written about the resurrection in three and a half years! Examined every source of information! Come one WT, this is simply impossible. If he was the brightest student he must also have been his only student.Now remember that Prof. Thomas was supposed to have said ‘if you want respect for your beliefs you must know what you believe and why you believe it.’This is fine and I totally agree. So Prof. Thomas must know a lot about atheism and he must be sure why he is an atheist. Keep this in mind. So the self confessed atheist who knows what he believes and why he believes it hasn’t looked at any evidence for Jesus before? Yeah right. Would you really agree that Jesus was the founder of a new religion? I would say that Paul was the founder of Christianity, I really do not think Jesus was intent on starting a new faith. I got news for you WT, nothing is ever ‘proven’ in history. History, like science, can only present a theory to explain an event, that theory is never proven, it can be difficult to deny but historical theories are never proven. Also, a historical theory has to be falsifiable as well, there has to be some way of disproving it, there is no way to disprove divine intervention. Jesus’ resurrection will NEVER be proven. But the Romans did stand guard, why the change of mind? Actually Reimarus pointed out that the Roman guard story in the gospels disproves the resurrection because if thewre were guards at the tomb and they saw Jesus rise from the dead then it is surprising that they kept quiet about it. This has always bothered me, the scene of the greatest miracle of all time and no one actually knows for sure where the tomb is, amazing. Has every single crucifixion been recorded? Remember that Jesus was on the cross for an embarrassingly short amount of time, some people took three days or more to die, Jesus took a few hours. Maybe no one survived a three day crucifixion, but if it took that long for some to die then Jesus paltry few hours is easy to survive. Again, we only have subjective anonymous evidence for this. This is also misleading. Why couldn’t Joseph of Arimathea could have had the body removed without the disciples knowing about it and they could have been deceived. The disciples, to stop them from looking like fools, then invented the post resurrection sightings of Jesus, and it kept them in a job Hearsay again.Also from post 1. Worthless mommas boys? Why did they get called ‘Boanerges’? Why did worthless snivelling mommas boys get referred to in John 3:17 as:
James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)
James and John were noted for their tempers, they were not mommas boys. Complete and utter drivel, I think you need to widen your reading list WT, Gene Scott’s knowledge of the Bible and the social background in which it was written, is extremely poor.And: This is also another childish argument that has been yawned out of court many times. That Jesus was a liar, a fraud, or God, are not the only three options, he could have been a legend, he could have been mentally ill, there are other options not only these three. Why don’t you look a little more critically at Scott’s ‘scholarship?’ So what?You do know that Mark was not an eyewitness?Finally: A hardcore atheist changes his mind after a pathetic error ridden presentation such as this?I suggest that this ‘story’ is as real as Hovind’s ‘Berkeley professor’ fairytale, it simply didn’t happen.I know a lot of atheists, and trust me, they would make mincemeat out of Gene Scott’s presentation. A professor who would allow 8 assumptions to be accepted as fact, is hilarious, Gene Scott is making a fool of you WT.Oh, I would also like clarification of where I said that the disciples never lived.Also, where did you get the information that Barabbas only robbed Jews?Cheers.Brian.

Thankyou very much Paul, that is very interesting. Isn't it strange how many of WT's absolute statements (or are they Gene Scott's?) turn out to be inaccurate.I had never heard of Gene Scott before, but it seems like he is a bit of a 'showman', he certainly is no Bible scholar.Brian.

Hi WT You seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that no one was actually looking for any contrary evidence. We wee all waiting for you to post your positive evidence, we are still waiting, I repeat, no one was looking for contrary evidence. WT, I surfed the net for a few minutes and found this, that is all the time I have spent on it, I, and the others, do not need to find any contrary evidence, you are making the claim here, it is up to you to support it. You keep being told this but you don’t seem to understand it. Well there are hundreds of sources, they are all valid, you haven’t posted anything to refute them. You mean you cannot find them, well I am not posting them, it is up to you to find them. The only embarrassment I feel WT is for you, the way you have dodged issues right from post one is verging on ‘demeyerism.’ Well since no one has actually been looking, what do you expect? Okay, but you should actually tell us what these sources say about the martyrdoms, this is a debate forum, you don’t just ask people to read a book, we could counter by saying ‘ah, but have you read this book?’You also seem unaware that McBirnie admits he couldn’t find anything to support their martyrdoms except for legends and traditions. If you have them, summarise some of their evidence please. I at least quoted Heracleon, you haven’t posted a syllable yet. We cannot challenge your evidence as you haven’t posted any yet. If you didn’t want to post evidence then you shouldn’t have started a thread off, how can you hope to have a discussion if you refuse to support your stance? We are also doing a great service for the human race, we are dragging humanity out of the dark ages and into the 21st century. The days of taking myths as legends as reality are almost gone, science and history has annihilated the vast majority of the Bible, this can only be a good thing as humans need to evolve out of this suffocating nonsense. But the evidence only consists of hearsay and traditions, wee stories written by people with a vested interest, it may be evidence but it is unacceptable evidence. Well I can only speak for myself when I say that the Hebrew Bible does provide some useful evidence for illuminating history, it also provides a great source for examining the ancient near eastern mindset. So the Bible has its uses, it just needs to be placed n context. You are the one dragging this mythology into the world of scientific investigation, why should the Church’s doctrines and claims be treated any differently from the Mari texts? Evolution is the most documented and authenticated fact in human history, you just need to accept that, get over it, and get on with your life. Well at least you are aware of your bias, this makes your claims of evidence even more flimsy of course, it shows that you really haven’t looked for contrary evidence, or if you have, then you have ignored it. This brainwashing shows that Christianity is a world of self delusion with no foundation in fact, I am sure if a Christian went to a psychologist that their illness could be cured. Oh well at least you admit that you posted an erroneous claim, well done. I must have missed it, I certainly would not disagree. You are misunderstanding; as you haven’t formally studied history then this is understandable.Look at it this way, the past has gone, we can never retrieve it, it is gone forever. All that we can examine are the remnants of the past that are still around today, texts, relics etc. Even your memory of a past event is a present memory and not identical with what has been memorised. The present remains of the past are mute, they do not ‘talk’ to us, the way to make them ‘talk’ is to view them within a context that has meaning and significance. The main factor here is that meaning and significance do not exist outside of the human mind (Ernst Knauf , From History to Interpretation in Diana Edelman The Fabric of History JSOT Press, Sheffield 1991).Therefore, as the material from the past is only given meaning and significance by the person examining the material, any history produced will have been created in the mind of that person. This is why historians disagree so much over certain events, they often examine the same material and then come to completely different conclusions. Look at how many different ‘Life of Jesus’ books there is out there, they invariably use the same sources but you can get anything from a history book about Jesus being God, Jesus being a revolutionary, or Jesus being a magician. These authors will normally use the NT as their main source of information, but they come to different conclusions. There are many different factors here of course, but what they produce has only been created in their minds.
They are actually all history, as history is not the past, history is the written record of the past, but they cannot all be true history. I hadn’t heard of Scott until you mentioned him, but it seems that he is viewed as a bit of a nut by most of the webpages I saw. Does Thomas not say that you should know why you believe a certain thing, he is the one saying that you should make sure why you believe what you believe. Now with Thomas living in a Christian society I refuse to accept that he has never heard about Jesus or the resurrection and by his own criteria he should have looked into it. The two are inseparable. So how does he answer people who have spent countless hours studying the life of Jesus and they still reject the resurrection? I honestly think that the whole story has been made up, it doesn’t read as authentic at all, it make the professor out to be an idiot. Well did he mean to initiate a new religion, or did he come to get the Jewish religion ‘back on track?’ If we can trust the text that is, Jesus himself left no records. I know I am not gullible and I do not accept anything without examining the claims first. The claims made for Jesus are unreasonable, irrational and contradictory, his life story reeks of mythology and propaganda, and I have no reason to believe a single thing that has been written about this Jesus character. I disagree, I think that the ‘evidence’ is contradictory and irrational, the evidence is only contained in the Gospels, and they are unreliable. I find it very surprising that the scene of the most wonderful event in the history of mankind is not known. Now if this did happen, I really think that Jesus followers would have been very happy to say: ‘look for yourselves if you do not believe us, there is the tomb, can you see a body in it?’ There was no resurrection WT, there probably was no crucifixion either. But we still do not know for sure where the real one is, surely you must know the minefield that is Christian relics? Do you know that the Vatican has 9 foreskins that have all been said to belong to Jesus, do you know that enough splinters of the Cross have been found to build a replica of Noah’s ark? Yes Jesus was a wimpy mommas boy. Yes it is really a silly story isn’t it?Also, you have to concede that Gene Scott was wrong when he said that no one survived crucifixion. This darkness is pure fantasy of course, how can you get an eclipse of the sun in march/April in Israel? If you want to plead to the divine again then this rejects the historicity of the tale. Well Isaiah does not mention Jesus at all, this is another example of Christians mutilating the Old Testament, I wish that Christians would actually read ALL of the Servant Songs to see how ridiculous they are being here. Jesus ‘died’ so early because the gospel authors realised that it was coming up to the Sabbath, they had to give the myth some credibility. No this indicates that Jesus suddenly realises that he has deluded himself all along, he suddenly realises that there is no God, his last words should have read’ Sh*t how could I have been so wrong!’ Jesus called them the sons of thunder, since Jesus was supposed to be God then he erred in naming them.You also called all of the disciples cowards, I do not see where the information is for you to come to this conclusion. Christianity did not cause a cataclysmic change, it crept slowly around in the background of society. It wasn’t until Constantine that it really began to spread, and it wasn’t due to Jesus being so wonderful, it was through fear of the mighty Roman Empire that converted people, Christianity only spread through persecution and fear. More circular reasoning WT, using the bible to prove the bible, this is not evidence. Persecution, fear and ignorance. It is well documented that Christians forcefully converted countless ‘pagans’ it was not spread through love and understanding, it was What makes you think that Jesus was a good person? So Jesus was a fraud then, what is the big deal? Or he can be a figment of the church's imagination. But, if we take the words of Jesus given in the Gospels as being his actual words, then Jesus was basically a liar. He can claim all he wants, it doesn’t make it true. Well I disagree, he could have been mentally ill, and although he would have been a fake it wouldn’t have been intentional. The presentation only happened in Scott’s sick mind. I am afraid that Gene Scott is a perfect stereotype of the dumb Christian, the guy is a half-wit. So Gene Scott converted Thomas to Christianity but not Scott’s flavour of Christianity? This is getting more ridiculous by the second, if Scott was so convincing, the only person that could convince Thomas, then why did Thomas reject Scott’s denomination? But the author of Mark’s Gospel was not a disciple, he didn’t even know Jesus, so he really wouldn’t have known what Jesus said. You do know that an eyewitness didn’t write ‘Mark’ don’t you?Brian.

Bail out of what debate?We cannot have a debate because you keep refusing to support your claim about the martyrdom of the apostles. If you ever post anything worth a decent reply then you will get a decent reply.The story about Scott and Thomas has no sense of authenticity at all, it is laughable, something that a child would make up.We are too far apart in our beliefs because I do not walk about with my eyes shut and my fingers in my ears. I am open minded, you will not consider for even a second that the Bible stories are a work of fiction. I approach the sources from a critical viewpoint, you ONLY look for any scrap of text that may support you stance, no matter how silly it is, and cling to it to maintain your fantasy.If you consider a fair and balanced approach to the material to be unreasonable then I am afraid I cannot approach it any other way.I am very happy to have my 'God sense removed', it is very liberating.Brian.