Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't like being misrepresented. And I don't know if you're doing it deliberately or if you are pathetically lacking in comprehension ability. I said in post #29 which was the first post on this thread in which I addressed the issue of the deaths of the apostles that while the disciples were willing to suffer and even go to their deaths, which at least some of them did. ''Some'' distinguishes however many disciples actually were martyred from the rest of the disciples who while willing to go to their martyrdom may not have been martyred. In other words, while all the disciples were willing to go to their deaths for their faith, some of them actually did, but not necessarily all of them. And so no, I didn't work anything down, and I didn't change my claim.
From post #29
The disciples did not steal Jesus' body and then spend the rest of their lives being willing to suffer and even go to their deaths, which at least some of them did, including Jesus' own brother, James who had not believed that Jesus was the Messiah during His ministry, for what they knew to be a lie. Liars make poor martyrs. Nor would a stolen body explain why Paul, who had persecuted the Christians, suddenly became a believer himself.
Are you even remotely capable of understanding that, or does it still fly miles over your head?
Mike, you still just do not get it. And I doubt you ever will. Now I'm going to make one last attempt at this and then the issue is closed, for me at least. Don't expect a response no matter how many insults you hurl.
Quote:
while all the disciples were willing to go to their deaths for their faith
This is a silly, rather stupid, if you really want to know, remark to make. You have already admitted you have verifiable proof only for James' martyrdom. You ascribed church tradition as the only proof you have for Peter and Paul's martyrdom. No historic record, Biblical or secular exists that mentions the deaths of Peter or Paul. The other nine there's nothing to go on, neither Biblical nor historical, just myth, fable, church traditions and the like.
I don't like being misrepresented. And I don't know if you're doing it deliberately or if you are pathetically lacking in comprehension ability. I said in post #29 which was the first post on this thread in which I addressed the issue of the deaths of the apostles that while the disciples were willing to suffer and even go to their deaths, which at least some of them did. ''Some'' distinguishes however many disciples actually were martyred from the rest of the disciples who while willing to go to their martyrdom may not have been martyred. In other words, while all the disciples were willing to go to their deaths for their faith, some of them actually did, but not necessarily all of them. And so no, I didn't work anything down, and I didn't change my claim.
From post #29
The disciples did not steal Jesus' body and then spend the rest of their lives being willing to suffer and even go to their deaths, which at least some of them did, including Jesus' own brother, James who had not believed that Jesus was the Messiah during His ministry, for what they knew to be a lie. Liars make poor martyrs. Nor would a stolen body explain why Paul, who had persecuted the Christians, suddenly became a believer himself.
Are you even remotely capable of understanding that, or does it still fly miles over your head?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Mike, you still just do not get it. And I doubt you ever will. Now I'm going to make one last attempt at this and then the issue is closed, for me at least. Don't expect a response no matter how many insults you hurl.
This is a silly, rather stupid, if you really want to know, remark to make. You have already admitted you have verifiable proof only for James' martyrdom. You ascribed church tradition as the only proof you have for Peter and Paul's martyrdom. No historic record, Biblical or secular exists that mentions the deaths of Peter or Paul. The other nine there's nothing to go on, neither Biblical nor historical, just myth, fable, church traditions and the like.
You are now changing your argument. Before, you stated that I said that all the disciples were martyred. And that has been shown to be a false claim on your part. Now you are focusing on the fact that I did say that all the disciples were WILLING to be martyred and you are trying to make it seem as though that was your point all along.
How do I know that all the disciples (here speaking of the original 12 with the exception of Judas Iscariot who the Lord knew from the beginning would betray Him) were willing to go to their deaths for their faith. Because Jesus specifically chose them to spread the Gospel after His ascension and He knew that they would do so. He gave them the great commission (Matthew 28:19-20), and we see in Acts chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 2 the disciples waiting in Jerusalem as Jesus commanded them to, waiting for the Holy Spirit to be given on the day of Pentecost by which they were empowered to carry out their mission.
And as has been shown from Scripture, Paul was stoned and left for dead (Acts 14:19), but recovered and continued to spread the gospel. He was willing to go to his martyrdom for his faith. And he eventually did.
And for your information, the extra-biblical sources concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul are historical sources. As is Josephus' report of the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus. That passage of Josephus regarding James is regarded as authentic by scholars.
The following, which were posted in post #53 are historical documents by contemporaries of the apostles. They lived during the lifetimes of the apostles. And they also knew the apostles. That means they had knowledge of the apostles and their activities.
Clement of Rome writes of the sufferings of Peter and Paul, and most likely refers to their martyrdoms.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS
Estimated Range of Dating: A.D. 80-140.
1Clem 5:2
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.
1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.
1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,
1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.
Ignatius, a contemporary of the apostles, and bishop of the church in Antioch, while on his way to his own martyrdom around A.D. 110 wrote seven letters, one of which was to the church in Smyrna. In the letter he mentions that having seen the risen Christ, the disciples were so encouraged that they despised, or disregarded death. The letters of Ignatius in the middle Recension are considered authentic by scholars.
Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
CHAPTER 3
3:1 For I know and believe that He was in the flesh
even after the resurrection;
3:2 and when He came to Peter and his company, He
said to them, _Lay hold and handle me, and see that I
am not a demon without body._ And straightway they
touched Him, and they believed, being joined unto His
flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised
death, nay they were found superior to death.
The willingness of Peter and Paul to suffer and disregard death for their faith is clearly stated by Clement and Ignatius.
Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews Book XX, Chapter IX writes of the martyrdom by stoning of James the brother of Jesus. Unlike the other passage referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum [Book XVIII, Chapter III], the passage referring to James the brother of Jesus is considered authentic by most scholars.
The martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, as well as James are attested to by Tertullian who wrote just prior to A.D. 200. Though somewhat further removed in time from the apostles, this statement by Tertullian was not made out of thin air, but was based on information that had come down to Tertullian, and there is no reason to disregard it except out of a desire to deny that Peter and Paul were martyred. It has already been shown from Clement of Rome who was a contemporary of the apostles that Peter and Paul contended even unto death. And while it might be argued that that statement doesn't necessarily refer to their actual martyrdom, it clearly states their willingness to go to their deaths.
Scorpiace 15
That Peter is struck, that Stephen is overwhelmed by stones, Acts 7:59 that James is slain as is a victim at the altar, that Paul is beheaded has been written in their own blood. And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Cæsars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, John 21:18 when he is made fast to the cross. Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom.
I wanted to be done with this thread, but because of your disingenuous comments about me, I had to post a couple more times to refute your statements. I trust that I have done so.
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-14-2016 at 02:12 PM..
Mat 27:65 Yet Pilate averred to them, "You have a detail. Go, make it secure, as you are aware." Some suggest the Greek of the bold above can be "Take a guard" which would be a detail of guards. "A guard" is like a singular speaking for a plurality such as the term "a squad."
Gospel Matthew does NOT say "Yet Pilate averred to them." You added that all on your own. What DOES Pilate say? "You have a guard." Go ahead and guard it the best you can. The word guard gives no implication of number. It could mean one or many. But the term in Greek is "Koustodia". Which has been variously translated as "a watch," "a guard," or a detail. And the priests certainly did have "a guard" at their disposal. The Jewish temple police numbered around 200, and although technically fledgling priests, they were well trained in combat. It was their job to guard the temple against all forms of sacrilege or incursion by the unclean or non Jews. And protocol would have necessitated that the Jewish chief priests, on official business with the Roman governor, would almost certainly have had a contingent of their own men already right at hand with them as their bodyguard. That was who Pilate was referring to. We can see this perfectly well in the next passage of Matthew. The priests "sealed the tomb," which is to say, they placed their offical seals on it, and THE PRIESTS set the guard. No implication of Roman guards is given here at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
And while they were going, behold, some of the guard of soldiers went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened (Matthew 28:11).
Yes, it makes perfect sense that Jewish soldiers would report to their superiors for instruction. It makes NO sense for Roman soldiers to have reported to the Jewish priests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Why did they report the resurrection to the chief priests rather than to Pilate? How could they explain to Pilate that their prisoner escaped? So they went to the chief priests instead. Not only that but it was during the feast of Passover when Jerusalem was flooded with Jews. There were hundreds of thousands of Jews in town and many of these were fans of Jesus. So there weren't just 11 disciples for the chief priests to worry about having the body stolen but more like around 10,000. So they had to put a pretty large detail to guard the tomb.
First, there is no indication in ANY of the Gospels that anyone at all witnessed the resurrection. Gospel Matthew indicates that some of the guard reported to their superiors. What else could they do? It's true that the city was filled with many tens of thousand of pilgrims for the Passover ceremonies. But the crowd had already demonstrated that it generally cared little about Jesus one way or the other when it chose to spare Barabbas over Jesus. A handful of trained soldiers could guard the tomb against the apostles well enough. And while it is true that there were disciples above and beyond the remaining eleven apostles, a pitched battle would have ruined any possibility that the disciples could claim that the empty tomb proved that Jesus had been resurrected. As we will discover, the disciples had no reason to attack the guard in a pitched battle anyway. The next morning it was discovered that the tomb already empty.
The fact is, THE DISCIPLES HAD THE BODY ALL ALONG. It was given to them by Pilate the preceding day, and they were the ONLY ONES to EVER be in clear possession of it. The priests had taken possession of a CLOSED TOMB. One which subsequently proved to be empty. The disciples relocated the body and then a few weeks later began spreading the rumor that Jesus had "risen' from the dead. Just as the priests had feared they intended to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Just to guard Peter in Acts 12:4 Herod had 4 quaternions of soldiers or 4 sets of 4 soldiers just to guard one man. Not only that but how could a large number or Roman soldiers, highly trained all be sleeping? And how did they sleep while the stone was being rolled away? It doesn't make sense.
Yes, in the case of Acts 12 Roman guards are EXPLICITLY INDICATED. Peter was being held in a Roman prison after all, where one would normally expect to find a lot Roman guards.
But you are completely right on the second issue. The story of ANY guard sleeping through the disciples rolling away the stone and making off with the body makes no more sense today than it did 2,000 years ago. If the guard had been Roman, a much more believable story to give to the Jewish nation would have been that the Roman guards took a bribe and allowed the disciples to make off with the body. The Jewish priests would have had absolutely no motive for protecting Roman guards. They should have been outraged and demanded of Pilate that they be tried for dereliction of duty. But the guard was made up of their own men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
And it doesn't really matter if they were Roman Guards or Temple Guards. But if the chief priests had Temple Guards, which they did, why would they even ask Pilate for guards? They could have just sent the Temple Guards to secure the tomb Jesus was in.
Pilate personally gave the body to Joseph of Arimathea. Challenging Pilate's authority by taking possession of the body for themselves would have been in extremely bad form. You don't want to **** off the guy you have to ask favors of. So they asked Pilate's permission first. A wise move all around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
And by Pilate saying "You have a detail", this is the same as him saying, I am giving you a detail of soldiers.
This is like declaring that ""I want to hold your hand," is the same thing as saying, "I want to marry you." But, quite significantly you see, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL. The difference is a good deal more than subtle. Pilate pointed out that they had a guard of their own. And in the next verse the priests are the ones setting a guard. Declaring the guard to be Roman is a major case of wishful thinking, and a clear case of Christian mythology in action. Assumptions read into existence by the popularly held traditions and wishful thinking of Christians. But not in evidence from the facts at hand. The entire edifice of Christianity is constructed on just such baseless assumptions and unfounded traditions.
Sleeping on guard duty was dereliction of duty and if convicted the offender was beaten to death by his fellow soldiers. It was a matter of morale and it was strictly enforced. No exceptions! Pilate would have been nearly as powerless to have stopped such a verdict as the Jewish priests would have been. Dereliction of duty was a matter of Roman military justice, and something for his commanders to address. It was out of Pilate's jurisdiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Matthew 28:12-14 And being gathered with the elders, besides holding a consultation, they give a considerable sum of silver to the soldiers, (13) saying, "Say that 'His disciples, coming by night, steal him as we are reposing.'" (14) And if ever this should be heard by the governor, we will persuade him, and we will make you to be without worry."
Pilate was not much concerned with the body of Jesus right from the beginning. If he had been he would not have given the body to Jesus' own disciples. The order to guard the tomb was Pilate's order, but the priests had reason to suppose that they could mollify him on that account "if ever this should be heard by the governor." Which tells you right there that the Romans were not involved at the tomb. If the dereliction of duty was committed by Jewish soldiers, that was really of no concern to Pilate. Things would have been much different had the guards been Roman. That would NOT have been easily overlooked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
In Matthew 27:66 a seal was to be put on the tomb that anyone breaking that Roman seal would be liable to death. Why would Pilate give that seal to the Jews? He'd have his own Roman soldiers put the seal on the tomb.
Matt.27:66 specifically indicates that the priests sealed the tomb. They used their own seals.! The use of seal was completely common at the time. Every minor merchant used seals to identify his goods. Anyone attacking and killing the guards would have cared little about the seals one way or the other, as they would have been liable for death for killing the guard if caught anyway. You can only kill someone so much. Study up on the nature of seals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_(emblem)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
In the Gospel of Peter we have this about soldiers:
2 And the elders were afraid and came unto Pilate, begging him and saying, 3 “Give us soldiers that we may guard his tomb for three days, lest his disciples come and steal him away and the people suppose that he is risen from the dead, and do us harm.” 4 And Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to watch the tomb. And the elders and scribes came with them unto the tomb. 5 All who were there with the soldiers rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb 6 and plastered seven seals on it. Then they pitched a tent there and kept watch.
9 Early in the morning, as the Sabbath dawned, there came a large crowd from Jerusalem and the surrounding areas to see the sealed tomb. 2 But during the night before the Lord’s day dawned, as the soldiers were keeping guard two by two in every watch, there came a great sound in the sky, 3 and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend shining with a great light, and they drew near to the tomb. 4 The stone which had been set on the door rolled away by itself and moved to one side, and the tomb was opened and both of the young men went in.
10 Now when these soldiers saw that, they woke up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping watch).
Even the most ardent Christian theologians recognize the Gospel of Peter for what it is. And that would be nothing but fiction and fantasy. Which is why it was NOT in the NT. Gospel Matthew, the Gospel that IS in the NT, in fact tells us:
Matt.27
[59] And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
So you are now completely off of the reservation now in terms of what even Christians consider accepted facts, such as they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
4. Another early, non-canonical work, the so-called “Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius” says, “…and they crucified him, and when he was buried they set guards upon him. But while my soldiers watched him he rose again on the third day: yet so much was the malice of the Jews kindled that they gave money to the soldiers, saying: Say ye that his disciples stole away his body. But they, though they took the money, were not able to keep silence concerning that which had come to pass, for they also have testified that they saw him arisen and that they received money from the Jews.”
5. The Gospel of Nicodemus contains within it a section called the “Acts of Pilate” (and even is sometimes referred to as that; c. 200-350 AD) and has a statement that says, “And while they were still sitting in the synagogue, and wondering about Joseph, there come some of the guard whom the Jews had begged of Pilate to guard the tomb of Jesus, that His disciples might not come and steal Him.”
Later in the same, “And they crucified him, and set guards over him when buried. And he rose again on the third day, while my soldiers were keeping guard. But so flagrant was the iniquity of the Jews, that they gave money to my soldiers, saying, Say that his disciples have stolen his body. But after receiving the money they could not keep secret what had been done; for they bore witness both that he had risen again, that they had seen him, and that they had received money from the Jews.”
This is the perfect merger of fiction and fantasy with even more fiction and fantasy. Make believe begetting even more make believe. All of it asserting that a corpse came back to life and flew away. You could hardly have made my case for me any better than if you had been intended to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Personally I believe that there were Roman Guards and Temple Guards guarding Jesus as He lay dead in the tomb.
Well of course you do. No one is doubting that you genuinely believe what you believe. You also believe that the Earth once stopped rotating on it axis for about a full day, hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the streets, and that a corpse came back to life and flew away. What more do I even need to say about what you choose to believe in?
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 01-14-2016 at 02:56 PM..
Well of course you do. No one is doubting that you genuinely believe what you believe. You also believe that the Earth once stopped rotating on it axis for about a full day, hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the streets, and that a corpse came back to life and flew away. What more do I even need to say about what you choose to believe in?
I never claimed the earth once stopped rotating on its axis for about a full day.
Yes, I do believe that after Christ arose from the dead that others of faithful Israelites did so as well.
Yes, I really, wholeheartedly do believe that Christ died for our sins, was entombed and was roused the third day and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
What more do you need to say as to what I believe? I don't know. Maybe that I do believe God will save all mankind because Christ ransomed all mankind (1 Timothy 2:4-6), that I believe all in the heavens and all on the earth will one day be reconciled to God (Col.1:20), that I believe all in the heavens and all on the earth will one day be headed up in Christ (Eph.1:9,10), that one day God will be All in all (1 Cor.15:28).
I never claimed the earth once stopped rotating on its axis for about a full day.
The Book of Joshua tells of Joshua causing the sun and moon to stop dead in the sky, affording the Israelites time to finish the complete slaughter defenseless women, children and babies, just as God ordered. But we know that the sun only appears to move through the sky as a result of the Earth's rotation on it's axis. For the sun and the Moon to have stopped in the sky would have required that the Earth stopped rotating for a day, and then begun rotating again. The Moon's orbit would necessarily have to have been arrested and started again as well. Do you deny the truth and accuracy of the story in Joshua? Or do you simply reject all modern science and physics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Yes, I do believe that after Christ arose from the dead that others of faithful Israelites did so as well.
Wouldn't you normally expect corpses coming up out of their graves and wandering the street to have illicited SOME KIND of a notice from someone? I'm reasonably sure it would cause some sort of commotion in my town. The brief mention in Gospel Matthew is absolutely THE ONLY mention of this incredible claim ever though.
The Book of Joshua tells of Joshua causing the sun and moon to stop dead in the sky, affording the Israelites time to finish the complete slaughter defenseless women, children and babies, just as God ordered. But we know that the sun only appears to move through the sky as a result of the Earth's rotation on it's axis. For the sun and the Moon to have stopped in the sky would have required that the Earth stopped rotating for a day, and then begun rotating again. The Moon's orbit would necessarily have to have been arrested and started again as well. Do you deny the truth and accuracy of the story in Joshua? Or do you simply reject all modern science and physics?
Wouldn't you normally expect corpses coming up out of their graves and wandering the street to have illicited SOME KIND of a notice from someone? I'm reasonably sure it would cause some sort of commotion in my town. The brief mention in Gospel Matthew is absolutely THE ONLY mention of this incredible claim ever though.
And we've already caught Matthew in numerous lies, exaggerations and flat out misapplications of OT scriptures to bolster Jesus-is-the-Messiah belief, which makes the gospel of Matthew pure propaganda.
And we've already caught Matthew in numerous lies, exaggerations and flat out misapplications of OT scriptures to bolster Jesus-is-the-Messiah belief, which makes the gospel of Matthew pure propaganda.
Keep in mind that Matthew is predominantly the much shorter Gospel of Mark. Virtually the entire Gospel of Mark is contained in Matthew. And much of what is unique to Matthew is COMPLETELY unique to Matthew, and is is referred to by no other sources at all.
Wikipedia
Gospel of Matthew
The majority view of modern scholars is that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and that Matthew (who includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses) and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
Keep in mind that Matthew is predominantly the much shorter Gospel of Mark. Virtually the entire Gospel of Mark is contained in Matthew. And much of what is unique to Matthew is COMPLETELY unique to Matthew, and is is referred to by no other sources at all.
Wikipedia
Gospel of Matthew
The majority view of modern scholars is that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and that Matthew (who includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses) and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
