RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

Yes chip thats the one.Brian.

You arbitrarily equate miracle to be synonymous with myth.In other words, your brain is closed to even considering whether a miracle has or could happen.This reasoning is circular."miracles cannot exist, therefore anyone who says they do is crazy, because miracles do not exist, and regardless of the evidence miracles cannot exist"

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, I believe that we are still waiting on this "checkmate evidence".I am giving you time to research this claim of yours, but isn't it a bit disingenuous to continue to make the claim until the evidence is brought forth?

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

That miracles do not happen is consistent with my experience. I have never witnessed a miracle. Modern science has never been able to verify a miracle. Therefore, it is my default belief that miracles, of the type believed by traditional Christians, do not occur. If someone wants to convince me that miracles do happen, then the burden of proof is on them. They must supply the evidence. This isn't meant to be mean, or difficult, just that I can only go by my own beliefs and experiences. I consider myself reasonable - if someone can supply good evidence for miracles, then I will believe them.So, when an ancient story is told, and the story involves a miracle, my assumption is that the story is a myth. Again, such an assumption squares with my own experiences. To assume that the story is true and so the miracle did happen, this would contradict my experiences.If you want to present an ancient story as true, and if you want to convince me that it is true, then you have to provide some good evidence that it is true. I mean no offence when I say this, but the Gospels are a collection of stories that seem to have been first written down after the fall of Jerusalem. We don't even have any complete manuscripts that date before the third or fourth centuries CE. I know that you believe otherwise, but the Gospels themselves are not really evidence of anything except that a collection of stories were circulating among the adherents of the early Christian religion by about 70 CE or so.

Asgara :I am sorry but I do not know exactly what you are saying/asking. You are speaking plain english but I still do not know.Are you asking for evidence that the apostles/disciples were martyred ?I challenge anyone in this debate to provide ANY type of historical information that even suggests the apostles were not martyred.There are legends, and bios, and accounts, and research, and some contradict, and some dispute places and times and details.Whats the point ?None of what I just referenced disputes that they lived or died a martyrs death - that is the common denominator.

WillowTree, you are trying to present evidence that the ressurrection was a real, historical event. Okay, maybe it was, but it sounds pretty fantastic to me. So the question is: what evidence is there that the Gospels are valid?You now present the martyrdom of the apostles as evidence. Your point seems to be that they wouldn't have risked their lives for a lie.But how do we even know that the apostles actually existed? Or if they existed, how do we know that they were martyred? You are providing this as evidence, so it is you who must demonstrate that the apostles existed and were indeed martyred.Even if St. Whoever did exist and was martyred, would this be evidence for the ressurrection? No. Maybe the "apostle" was someone who came to believe in the myth later, and believed strongly enough to die for it (after all, there were martyrs centuries after the time of Jesus). And the stories that this particular person knew Jesus personally developed later, after the person's death.Or maybe this person did know Jesus. But Jesus' teachings, regardless of how he actually died, had such a profound effect on this apostle that he was willing to die for these teachings even without the miracles; again, we know of contemporary individuals who are willing to sacrifice their lives for political ideologies set forth by moral humans. Would it have been so different 2000 years ago? One does not need to believe in immortality to be willing to risk one's life for a cause.Edited to add:
Oops. The third to the last sentence should have read "mortal humans", not "moral humans".[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 03-08-2004]

And what about the martyrs of other religions? If Christianity is to be believed, then in fact some people did give their lives for a lie.The very existence of martyrs for every religion is evidence that you can't use the existence of martyrs to support a religion.

The question is not the dating of the 7Q fragments. It is the identification of which texts they have come from.There IS no "blanket rejection" of the evidence, simply a dispute over which books are represented in the fragments. These are very small fragments (7Q5 has *one* complete word on it - "kai"). Identifying the source - when it may not even be a document we know - is obivously very difficult.

quote:

---

You arbitrarily equate miracle to be synonymous with myth.
In other words, your brain is closed to even considering whether a miracle has or could happen.

---

But isn't your brain closed to miracles, too?I mean, you probably do not accept any of the miraculous events reported in Hindu, Native American, or Wiccan tradition as "real", right?Correct me if I'm wrong, but you would tend to disbelieve that Vishnu, or a tree or rock spirit, or the Goddess was the cause of any miracle, correct?

Negative.I have no trouble believing in those claims of miracles. Most are fables, some are undoubtedly true.The issue is what does it mean and what is the source of the miracle.There are only two possible sources : God or Satan.

Why is that? There are lots of gods to choose from. Plus perhaps we are being watched over by aliens with very advanced technology? How could you restrict yourself to just those two?

Actually, it can only be God: Matthew 12:24-26:

Tera :Certain things must be assumed in any given debates. Without even addressing the specifics of your challenge (apostles/existed/martyred)
I answer by saying NOBODY contests whether they existed, NOBODY contests whether they were martyred. If all I had to do was prove they existed/martyred then "everyone" would be convinced of their report. This particular issue is a "101" "cobbler" (as the Brits say).Remember, the text of evidence says that Christ was preached raised and ascended, this was assumed as fact, this places the reporters in the category of eyewitnesses, this makes the apostles messengers of "historic certainty", which, of course, to everyone 2000 years removed from the event is "de-accessioned" from being able to directly examine the witnesses. This is why there are only two
choices : they lied or told the truth in the written record of the event/claim.If you want to challenge the gospels then you need to assume the claim to be true AND THEN from there, specifically state why they are liars. I have provided two examples of intrinsic evidence of truth in the text."contemporary " individuals sacrificing lives for whatever cause SAYS nothing for or against the text of evidence.The important aspect of the apostles death, is the fact that they died alone, horribly, while possessing the ability to escape death by recanting, this tri-fold circumstance is the common denominator in all the sources/accounts/legends/stories/bios of their deaths. This particular evidence is also offered under the challenge for anyone to uncover any source/account/legend/story/ or bio about their deaths that even remotely implies that they did not die alone, horribly, or recanted.