RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

Well there is ONE honest thing in your post. You never admitted that the reason you didn't produce the evidence was that you didn't have it. But your lame excuses speak for themselves. We both know that there is little if any trustworthy information about the deaths of the Apostles and the claim that they were martyred specifically over the Resurrection simply cannot be supported.So, no there is nothing dishonest about my post.

Well it isn't the first time I've repeated the information. And others have produced evidence, too (like Brian's report of the tradition that Matthew was NOT martyred). Willowtree even replied to that one so he knows that evidence contrary to his claims HAS been produced.

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.

It is not unknwon for people to survive a Roman crucifixion.From Josephus' Autobigraphy

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.

You will get full responses to everything posted including the Barrabas issue which is not being forgotten by me - 1 or 2 days away.

quote:

---

Cannot anyone acknowledge that in a debate forum not one person could post one piece of evidence contradicting martyrdom ?

---

Sure, we have certainly acknowledged that, over and over again.So what?I have also acknowledged that there is not a single shred of evidence contradicting the idea that the Apostled whistled "dixie" at the crucifiction.That must mean that, in fact, the Apostles DID whistle "Dixie" at the crucifiction, right?See how stupid and illogical this is?

BRIAN QUOTE :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. END BRIAN QUOTEThe above excerpt begins with an exaggeration, which is that "some people did doubt his (Matthew) martyrdom".The unique thing about "the challenge" was no debater could post a single shred against the checkmate evidence for a 150 pages of debate, probably an all time first in a forum whose members are hatchett experts. But every honest and intelligent and non-naive person knows that a furious scavenger hunt was on-going by the resident scholar/all my opponents. Technically, the hunt came to an end when BRIAN scraped up a scrap, an out of context quote by a respected church Father, who quoted a gnostic (AKA heretic) Heracleon, who said that two or three apostles were not martyred (not just Matthew ), who made this spurious claim WHILE DEFENDING AN ARGUMENT AGAINST MARTYRDOM.Heracleon said it was not a sin/shame to deny the faith and avoid martyrdom, to evidence his whitewash of cowardice/fear he capriciously proclaims "such and such" were not martyrs. For those of you unknowing about gnostics; they base ALL their spiritual claims on a personal experience, unlike the Church who base their spiritual claims/sources solely upon the writings of the apostles/disciples.With this now said; who are the "some people" that claim Matthew wasn't martyred ?Who besides the gnostic-ok-to-deny-faith-heretic-Heracleon ?Lets assume this is a shred - you're still in a state of humiliation. You have collectively, as a room, now produced one scrap off a gnostic table - all from a guy who knows he hasn't the guts to die for his personal vision of God. Reminds me of draft dodgers citing "conscience". Why can't you just say you're afraid to die instead of invoking conscience as if you're the only one who has one ?Continuing with the excerpt : BRIAN then complains that I haven't posted any evidence about apostles/disciples martyrdom. Yes I have and will.McBirnie's "Search for the Twelve Apostles" was already entered in to evidence, and the urging to simply type "saints name martyrdom" into Google search, and now I add "The Oxford Dictionary of Saints" compiled by David Hugh Farmer.These three sources are all readily available to most everyone - nothing obscure here. They all evidence the claim that the apostles/disciples died alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection.IF you are going to utilize the weight of a Heracleon to be refutation, then by the same standard/criteria, the three sources cited, plus my refutation of Heracleon, places you back on the grisly meat hook.IF you forget Heracleon altogether and challenge my evidence alone to not be evidence THEN this is what I say :This is why I didn't want to post the evidence. Because atheist revisionism/mindset has completely erased the meaning and credibility of religious evidence. TO YOU, the collective sources and evidence for the apostles/disciples martyrdom simply ISN'T evidence. Atheism, in general, is completely brainwashed, diametrically opposed to the validity of theism and their sources. You hold the sacred doctrines and claims of the Church to a scientific standard of evidence. But have no trouble when it comes to science deducing unseen things with the flimsiest of evidence. The amount of phsical evidence, by volume, that exists to claim man evolved from an ape is utterly "meagre".In fairness, you could say, theists/christians are brainwashed. YES WE ARE.We are brainwashed with the word of God, that is the foundational claim of every church Father and christian, we have had our brains washed with the subjective words of God/Jesus Christ, which, IF He is, becomes objective truth. Everyone needs their brainwashed by the word of God.Previously, in this topic, I argued that my opponents/atheism "is beyond the pale", the boundary of being affected by anything theist. What I am saying is that atheism and theism are too far apart. I don't want to argue about what evidence is, since I KNOW that any church source is automatically more objective than a non church source, and I know you/the room consider church sources/traditions to be laughable - we are too far apart. This isn't an insult - just an honest assessment.Back to your excerpt :Yes I agree Heracleon is contrary evidence.You say there is no such thing as a bias free historical account: Yes I agree, I think I said the exact same thing before and you balked.Then you say "All history is a creation of mind"I totally disagree, that is the admitted revisionist in you talking. Maybe its a byte from your worldview, whatever it is it is nonsense unless I am not understanding. Lets just say I don't understand what you mean by that remark.Your anti-Dr.Scott stuff is pure rant.Does not post 1 say that Professor Thomas didn't spend x amount of hours looking into the evidence for the Resurrection. You change the object to Jesus as opposed to Resurrection.Dr. Scott's lifelong crusade is to rhetorically wonder why people reject the claim of the Resurrection AND they haven't spent 15 hours of their life reviewing the evidence.Jesus not a founder of religion ?Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father except by Me"Brian you know this about Jesus, are you revising ?I agree; nothing is ever PROVEN in history.Let me re-phrase : The evidence for the Resurrection is sufficent to conclude that He rose.The point about the tombs is as follows :There are two tombs in Palestine that the Church claims to be the one Jesus was raised from.Why ?Because no one knows for sure which is the right tomb.Why ?Because it was lost to history.Why ?Because there was no body in it. (empty tomb assumed fact)It wasn't until the 4th century when the Church started to value its sacred sites that two tombs were narrowed down to be the real one.You are correct. Most crucifixions lasted three days.Jesus was dead in about 6 or 7 hours.The claim of scripture is that Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.God the Father crucified Jesus, He was suffering the wrath of God.This is why the scripture says "from about the sixth hour until the ninth" darkness covered the Earth. Theologians rightfully conclude that this darkness hid the facts/truths of the Suffering Messiah prophesied in Isaiah 53.Isaiah 53 says Jesus became the intense object of God's wrath for payment of sins AND for all diseases.Jesus died so early because God severely punished Him for our sins."my God my God why hast thou forsaken me" clearly indicates that Jesus was this object.The mommas boys image of the sons of thunder is derived from the passage when they sent their mother to Christ to ask for the best seats in the coming Kingdom.Cataclysmic change heresay ?They took the gospel to every remote region of the world, prior to Resurrection they couldn't even catch a fish. (John 21)What is the origin of the christianization of the world ?GOOD AND WISE :Jesus made claims of divinty and eternal pre-existence.A good person wouldn't lie and make claims like these.A wise person could make claims like this but that would make him a fraud and thus not good.Jesus cannot be BOTH, only one or the other, OR He is who He says He is : Son of God who always existed eternally.Whatever source you claim for good and wise has Jesus making Divintiy claims.Jesus mentally ill ? He is Son of God or a fraud, hence Dr. Scott's book titles "Jesus Christ Super Nut or Super Natural ?"Why discuss if Jesus rose, if you don't believe He lived, died etc.etc. ?The Professor Thomas presentation was about the Resurrection. The reality of the strength of Dr. Scott's convincibility was because Professor Thomas personally trained Dr. Scott. Larry Thomas respected Gene Scott as a fact driven scholar. No other person in the world could of converted Larry Thomas except Gene Scott. It took a respected peer to even get his attention.The reason why Dr. Scott always writes his name "Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University" is to prevent the world at large from falsely thinking that his degree is from some two-bit Bible college. The world simply cannot accept that a man with a Ph.D. from Stanford could be a christian. Dr. Scott jokes about this all the time. He constantly disproves the dumb christian stereotype.Larry Thomas began his quest for God that day. He later became Catholic and died in that dimension of truth. Dr. Scott, of course, is a Protestant Evangelical Paulinist.The Resurrection, IF true, validates divinty because Resurrection was predicted by Christ Himself.If Mark is liar/myth maker why have Jesus call Himself Son of Man instead of Son of God ?Because Jesus called Himself Son of Man to the Jews who knew what it meant. But Mark wrote to Gentiles who have no idea what Son of Man meant and he was writing to convince Gentiles Jesus was Son of God.This is intrinsic evidence of truth.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 03-21-2004]

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.

Tell you what. I'll respond to your checkmate evidence when you respond to my bingo evidence. I'll follow your lead and require that you do this without ever seeing the bingo evidence presented.--Percy

This is the post of a person wanting to bail out of the debate.You are an admitted revisionist, which I have said is nothing but a euphemism for liar/fraud.To say Dr. Scott made up the Larry Thomas event greatly evidences what you are.I can take sharp criticism because I dish it out, but to resort to concluding the event never happened indicates hysteria.Like I said we are too far apart in our beliefs. There is no common frame of reference. I think/know you are suffering the wrath of God - God sense removal, which means you have been turned over to a "strong delusion".

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.

The synoptics are representative of ONE voice, they tell us that some type of rebellion happened, and that Barrabas was nabbed in the ensuing dragnet.We do not know what the rebellion was about, it could of been directed at Jewish structures that the Romans allowed. It could of been against Rome - who knows ?But John's gospel tells us that "Now Barrabas was a robber."John was written after the synoptics and in my view gives us the updated and accurate facts about the crimes of Barrabas. John also had connections inside the Sanhedrin.Are we to believe that the various writers are in myth-making conspiracy ?The variations themselves evidence against conspiracy.Next thing....If you believe there was an eclipse that caused the darkness at the time of the crucifixion, then you agree that there was a "darkness" that occurred ?Next thing....No Solomon's Temple ?Could you briefly tell me why you believe this ?
By your own defintion of "oddball", are you one in this issue ?Next thing....If a miracle resides outside the realm of historical enquiry, and I say it doesn't, then why is my assertion a claim of faith and not yours ?

Jesus died on the cross.Do you really think the Jews who incited the crucifixion didn't have their desire fulfilled ?If the gospel writers are knowingly myth-making then why have Him die so early ? This doesn't make sense or help their story.Jesus did not die on Friday - He died on Wednesday because the Passover was a High Day Sabbath.

I'm not sure quite what this has to do with my post. All I did was point out that there was a recorded example of a man surviving a Roman crucifixion. And it is possible that Jesus also survided - especially if his legs were not broken (John 19:33). I don't consider it to be likely, but it is still a possibility.And I don't know where you get the idea that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday from. Perhaps you would like to explain. Or are you just going to claim that your assertions must be accepted as true unless disproved again ?Oh and are you prepared to admit that yo do NOT have evidence that all the disciples excpt John were martyred for preaching the Resurrection, and that all of them were offered and refused a chance to recant yet ?Acts 12:1-2 describes the death of James but offers no hint that the resurrection was the issue or that James was offered any chance to save his life. So where is the evidence ?