Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-13-2016, 12:31 PM
 
Location: USA
4,747 posts, read 2,330,716 times
Reputation: 1292

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Jesus' resurrection is only regarded as implausible by those, such as yourself, who have a bias against the supernatural. The disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus and the experience changed their lives.
The claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away is implausible in the same way that the story of a team of flying reindeer is implausible. The decision by you or anyone else to believe that either of these things are true does not change the fact that they are implausible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I already demonstrated from the Book of Acts that there was great persecution of the church which is plainly stated in Acts 8:1, and that people were being put to death. And here is further testimony to that effect from Paul.
Yes, the church in Jerusalem seems to have had it's membership dry up, and the story of the church from here on is one of struggling to survive. Paul brings money to support the church several times. But that was later. Paul claims to have personally brought persecution upon the church prior to his conversion, and yet made no effort to confront the apostles themselves or to in any way have harassed or persecuted any of the apostles. That's an odd way to fight heresy. The obvious way to end a movement is to go after the leaders. The apostles were the causation for this new movement. They were very prominent in their preaching and evangelizing at the time, at least according to Acts, the very source of this "heresy" that Paul claimed to have been fighting. We are led to believe that an unknown number of unnamed Christians were persecuted for being Christians. And yet for some reason Paul left the apostles, known individuals who were very prominent as the root cause for this new belief, completely alone. That seems an odd way of going about things. Rather backwards in fact. On what authority did Paul carry out the things that he claimed to have done, by the way?

This discussion began as a dispute over any indication in Acts the the apostles were persecuted to death for spreading the story of the risen Jesus. Acts 12 indicates that James the brother of John was executed by Herod Agrippa. That is the ONLY apostle that died in the pages of Acts. It's a fact and you cannot deny it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
What I said in post #60, and which you accuse me of 'making up' was that ''Luke stated that he investigated everything carefully. That included interviewing eyewitnesses from the beginning of Jesus' ministry.''

Luke stated it right at the beginning of His Gospel account.
Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2] just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3] it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4] so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Luke certainly in the course of his careful investigation interviewed the eyewitnesses which were available to be interviewed.
You are claiming that Luke may well have interviewed Paul's benifactor in Damascus, Ananias. Christian theologians contended that Paul was converted circa mid to late 30's. You can contest that if you wish. Acts was written circa the 80's, or fifty years later. Do you see the problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
They got this idea from Paul. The guy who talked to dead people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
This kind of casual dismissal based on nothing doesn't give you any credibility.
Acts
[2] As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

The idea came from Paul's invisible friends then, if that makes things any more clear for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
I have an anti-supernatural bias as a result of never experiencing a single supernatural thing in my entire life. I don't believe in leprechauns either, a result of never having seen a leprechaun. A lifetime of experience, or non experience in this case, is worth something, surely? But it's true that I have no regard for supernatural claims and I admit it. First, supernatural claims allow people to simply make things up and then declare them to be true. If we have learned anything from science in the past few centuries it's that everything happens for natural reasons, and supernatural cause has never yet, no not once, been unambiguously shown to be true. One gosh-darn, unambiguous, fully investigation and established to be gen-u-ine, no doubt about it supernatural event would cause me to rethink my conclusions. But you have no such example to offer. The supernatural can not be shown to exist and so there is no reason to suppose it exists. Outside of imaginationland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And there it is. Your rejection of the resurrection evidence is based on your anti-supernatural bias which you can't, or are not willing to set aside in order to look objectively at the evidence which you even deny exists.
You presuppose that a corpse came back to life and flew away, because you presuppose that that an omnipotent Being exists who can accomplish anything which therefore allows you to presuppose that this Being chose to make the corpse come back to life and fly away. Using the same method, it is easy to presuppose that Santa has a team of flying reindeer by presupposing that Santa not only exists, but that he has magical powers. At the end of the day however, no ACTUAL flying reindeer or flying reanimated corpses have been established to be real and viable in the real physical world that we all actually live in.

Presupposition is simply another word for make believe, you see. You presuppose that humans, and the universe we exist in must have been created by an infinitely powerful Being whom you not only presuppose exists, but whom you presuppose exists without the need for such a creation Himself. And you made it all up, which is, as I have just pointed out, what presupposition is all about. It's make believe, and that's how make believe works. There is another way of looking at the universe however. It's called the empirical method, and it involves investigating the physical evidence for what the physical evidence actually has to tell us. The empirical method entails close observation, much experimentation and direct experience, resulting in detailed conclusions that allow for the same results to be reached repeatedly. It requires that the results, when discovered, be accepted at face value even to the extent of completely abandoning centuries of make believe. This sort of research has also led us rather inextricably to the conclusion that EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS DOES SO FOR NATURAL REASONS which can be understood and even utilized for our advantage. The general term for this deeper understanding of the basis for how the physical universe operates is called quantum mechanics. Does the empirical method have credibility? Well, does that computer you are sitting at actually work? Do we have operating smart phones and all of the other modern technological marvels of this modern technological age? They are all based on an working understanding of quantum mechanics. They were NOT rendered extant by make believe.

So, where were all of these modern marvels in Jesus' time? The laws of quantum physics are exactly the same today as they were 2,000 years ago... or a billion years ago for that matter. However, by in large ancient people used a different method for reaching conclusions then the empirical method we use today. They made stuff up! What ancient peoples did not understand they simply made up reasons for. Gods and goddesses, elves, fairies, and the like. Whatever served to answer questions for which no obvious answer was readily at hand. This was the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method of reaching a conclusion. It really had no practical value, other than to seemingly provide answers. Answers which had
absolutely nothing to do with what was actually going on. Sadly, many people today still operate this way, applying made up solutions to questions they don't otherwise understand. Which is a shame, because the actual answers are most often readily available now, so make believe is no longer necessary. We have learned, through much trial and error, that the empirical method for accumulating genuine knowledge far surpasses the old "make it up and declare it to be true" presupposition method. So, I don't "presuppose" that there is no deity. I simply see no point in arbitrarily making up the existence of an invisible Being with infinite powers where no such Being is obvious. In fact, the existence of an infinitely powerful invisible Being that possesses the power to manipulate the laws of physics at will contradicts everything we believe that we know about how the universe works. This is the inevitable face off between make believe and knowledge you see. So I suppose it is fair to say that I do have a bias towards the real world over the world of make believe, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
There were Christians, though they were not at first referred to by that word, from the day of Pentecost in A.D. 33 assuming Jesus was crucified in A.D. 33 as opposed to A.D. 30.
Gospel Matthew indicates that Jesus was born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great. Herod died at a known time historically, 4 BC. Jesus therefore must have been born circa 5-6 BC, although it could have been even earlier. Luke.3:23 indicates that Jesus was about thirty when he began his ministry, and the Gospels count three Passovers during this period, allowing theologians to conclude that Jesus was about 33 when he died. If Jesus died in 33 AD, that would put his age at about 38, or even older, at the time of his death. The years 27-30 AD provide a more realistic probability for the time of the death of Jesus, based on the Gospel Matthew account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The disciples had direct knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus as they proclaimed and because of which they were transformed from fearful men into courageous men proclaiming the gospel message in the face of persecution and possible martyrdom. And for at least some of the disciples that martyrdom became a reality.
The disciples said they had direct knowledge that a corpse came back to life and then flew away, agreed. Your argument was that the apostles would not have undergone persecution and martyrdom for maintaining a lie. But Act's only mentions the death of a single apostle, James the brother of John. However Acts does indicate that the apostles may have had other incentives for continuing to spread the rumor of the "risen" Jesus above and beyond any personal devotion to the cause of their fallen leader.

Acts 4:
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.


Compared to their former back breaking and dangerous occupations as fishermen, or that even more dangerous job of tax collecting, this must have seemed like being on easy street. Early on, all the disciples had to do was wander about and tell stories, and people gave them money. Some personal motivation for continuing on with their story telling, above and beyond a purely spiritual motivation, must be noticed in this. Unless of course you think the likes of Peter Popov, Benny Hinn, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swggart, et al., are genuinely Godly men and care nothing about the money. And if you believe that then believe me, they will happily take all you care to give them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Again, what I provided exactly, in post #2, are the resurrection studies done by learned scholars. Studies which you refuse to even look at because you simply dismiss them as a waste of time to bother with.
"Learned Christian scholars" do vigorously attest that the story of a corpse coming back to life and then flying away is perfectly probable and likely, this is true. Muslim scholars maintain that the Qur'an is the inerrant Word of God based on their scholarship. Are you aware that the Qur'an indicates that Mohammad rode a flying beast up to Heaven before he died, where he met with the other prophets, the angels and God Himself? Are these things obviously true because people have claimed that they are so? The evidence "learned Christian scholars" employ for their learned conclusions is the same evidence you are presenting here. His followers said so. Because that is all the evidence that exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Actually, you don't show yourself to be very well versed on the issue at all. And you cling to the discredited naturalistic conspiracy hypothesis which posits that the disciples stole or otherwise moved Jesus' body and then lied about seeing Him risen from the grave. Nor do you seem very familiar with at least the Book of Acts.
The NT is just a book, and I have always been an excellent reader.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-13-2016, 12:40 PM
 
Location: USA
4,747 posts, read 2,330,716 times
Reputation: 1292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
You have swallowed too many conspiracy theories.
I am in general not a conspiracy theorist. The word conspiracy exists because conspiracies DO HAPPEN however. In fact you have conspired here not to answer the question I put to you at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2016, 12:57 PM
 
Location: USA
4,747 posts, read 2,330,716 times
Reputation: 1292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
How did the writers of the gospels know the Roman guards statements at the tomb Jesus was entombed in is accurate?
Here is what Gospel Matthew has to say about the guard at the tomb.

Matt.27
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

No mention of there being a Roman guard at the sepulchre is made whatsoever. What does Pilate say? "You have a watch(guard), go ahead and make it as secure as you can." He gave the priest permission to guard the tomb using their own men. Which is clearly indicated in the next verse. The priests set seals on the stone, and the priests set the watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
One or more of the Roman guards became Christian after witnessing Christ's resurrection from the dead.
From where exactly did you derive this assertion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2016, 04:58 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,923 posts, read 26,155,288 times
Reputation: 16082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
The claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away is implausible in the same way that the story of a team of flying reindeer is implausible. The decision by you or anyone else to believe that either of these things are true does not change the fact that they are implausible.
I intend for this to be my last post on this thread. This discussion has gone on long enough, and it is too time consuming. I am not going to convince you, and you are certainly not going to convince me.


That assertion is simply the assertion of a person who has an anti-supernaturalistic bias which you admit that you have. The resurrection of Jesus is not in the least bit implausible to those who are able to accept the reality of the supernatural. This argument amounts to no more than 'yes it is,' 'no it isn't,' 'yes it is,' 'no it isn't.' The issue is whether there is historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. And there is a vast amount of material in the area of resurrection studies. An objective person will study the material and decide whether or not he agrees that the evidence supports the resurrection of Jesus.
Quote:
Yes, the church in Jerusalem seems to have had it's membership dry up, and the story of the church from here on is one of struggling to survive. Paul brings money to support the church several times. But that was later. Paul claims to have personally brought persecution upon the church prior to his conversion, and yet made no effort to confront the apostles themselves or to in any way have harassed or persecuted any of the apostles. That's an odd way to fight heresy. The obvious way to end a movement is to go after the leaders. The apostles were the causation for this new movement. They were very prominent in their preaching and evangelizing at the time, at least according to Acts, the very source of this "heresy" that Paul claimed to have been fighting. We are led to believe that an unknown number of unnamed Christians were persecuted for being Christians. And yet for some reason Paul left the apostles, known individuals who were very prominent as the root cause for this new belief, completely alone. That seems an odd way of going about things. Rather backwards in fact. On what authority did Paul carry out the things that he claimed to have done, by the way?
As Paul himself stated, he acted on the authority and commission of the chief priests (Acts 26:10-12). This was already pointed out in post #65.

As Paul further states, he punished believers in the synagogues, and tried to force them to blaspheme. As well, he pursued them even to foreign cities (Acts 26:11) which is what he was doing when he was on the road to Damascus on the occasion that the risen Jesus appeared to him (Acts 26:12-18).

Quote:
This discussion began as a dispute over any indication in Acts the the apostles were persecuted to death for spreading the story of the risen Jesus. Acts 12 indicates that James the brother of John was executed by Herod Agrippa. That is the ONLY apostle that died in the pages of Acts. It's a fact and you cannot deny it.
While James the brother of John was the only one of the original 12 apostles mentioned in Acts to have been martyred, (and why would you imply that I would try to deny it), as I already pointed out in post #53, Herod also had Peter arrested and seems to have intended to kill him as well, but was prevented from doing so (Acts 12:3-10). Herod had Peter arrested after he saw that the death of James the brother of John had pleased the Jews (Acts 12:1-4). So it seems likely that Herod had Peter arrested with the intention of killing him.


Quote:
You are claiming that Luke may well have interviewed Paul's benifactor in Damascus, Ananias. Christian theologians contended that Paul was converted circa mid to late 30's. You can contest that if you wish. Acts was written circa the 80's, or fifty years later. Do you see the problem?
Scholars pretty much agree that Paul was converted within 2-4 years after Jesus was crucified. Assuming that Jesus was crucified in A.D. 33 as opposed to A.D. 30, this would indeed put Paul's conversion in the mid 30's.

Why would I contest Paul's having been converted in the mid 30's when I have in fact stated as such on other threads?

The precise dating of both the Gospels and of Acts, which was Luke's second volume cannot be dogmatically determined. Some scholars argue for a late date, and others for an early dating. However, a very good argument can be made for Acts having been written in the early 60's. Those arguments include the fact that Luke doesn't mention the death of Paul, or the death of Peter, both of whom were martyred sometime in the 60's (and I have already provided extra-biblical attestation to their martyrdom), and that Luke doesn't mention the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem which happened in A.D. 70, and the fact that the Neronian persecution which began in c. A.D. 64 isn't mentioned. All of these argue for a dating of Acts in the early 60's which of course would mean that the three synoptic Gospels would have been written even earlier.

And the age of Ananias (Paul's benefactor in Damascus) isn't given. There's no reason to assume that he was an old man at the time of Paul's conversion. And so Luke may very well have been able to interview him.

Quote:
Acts
[2] As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

The idea came from Paul's invisible friends then, if that makes things any more clear for you.
That's the opinion of a skeptic who thinks there was a conspiracy to commit fraud going on to promote the Christian faith.

Quote:
You presuppose that a corpse came back to life and flew away, because you presuppose that that an omnipotent Being exists who can accomplish anything which therefore allows you to presuppose that this Being chose to make the corpse come back to life and fly away. Using the same method, it is easy to presuppose that Santa has a team of flying reindeer by presupposing that Santa not only exists, but that he has magical powers. At the end of the day however, no ACTUAL flying reindeer or flying reanimated corpses have been established to be real and viable in the real physical world that we all actually live in.
Actually, it's the opposite. The historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is evidence that God exists. The reason being is because, as scholars have long maintained, none of the naturalistic explanations are adequate to explain why the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus. The swoon theory doesn't work, the hallucination theory doesn't work, the mistaken identity theory doesn't work. The disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus because they actually did. Oh, there are other reasons why I believe that God exists, but the resurrection of Jesus is certainly one of them.

Quote:
Presupposition is simply another word for make believe, you see. You presuppose that humans, and the universe we exist in must have been created by an infinitely powerful Being whom you not only presuppose exists, but whom you presuppose exists without the need for such a creation Himself. And you made it all up, which is, as I have just pointed out, what presupposition is all about. It's make believe, and that's how make believe works. There is another way of looking at the universe however. It's called the empirical method, and it involves investigating the physical evidence for what the physical evidence actually has to tell us. The empirical method entails close observation, much experimentation and direct experience, resulting in detailed conclusions that allow for the same results to be reached repeatedly. It requires that the results, when discovered, be accepted at face value even to the extent of completely abandoning centuries of make believe. This sort of research has also led us rather inextricably to the conclusion that EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS DOES SO FOR NATURAL REASONS which can be understood and even utilized for our advantage. The general term for this deeper understanding of the basis for how the physical universe operates is called quantum mechanics. Does the empirical method have credibility? Well, does that computer you are sitting at actually work? Do we have operating smart phones and all of the other modern technological marvels of this modern technological age? They are all based on an working understanding of quantum mechanics. They were NOT rendered extant by make believe.
I'm not going to get into a discussion on whether God exists or not. However, as I stated in the section above, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is evidence that God exists. The issue then is to objectively examine the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and come to a conclusion regarding its validity. A presupposition is an assumption. If you allow your presuppositions or assumptions to get in the way of objective thought then you will not come to an accurate conclusion based on the evidence.

Quote:
So, where were all of these modern marvels in Jesus' time? The laws of quantum physics are exactly the same today as they were 2,000 years ago... or a billion years ago for that matter. However, by in large ancient people used a different method for reaching conclusions then the empirical method we use today. They made stuff up! What ancient peoples did not understand they simply made up reasons for. Gods and goddesses, elves, fairies, and the like. Whatever served to answer questions for which no obvious answer was readily at hand. This was the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method of reaching a conclusion. It really had no practical value, other than to seemingly provide answers. Answers which had
absolutely nothing to do with what was actually going on. Sadly, many people today still operate this way, applying made up solutions to questions they don't otherwise understand. Which is a shame, because the actual answers are most often readily available now, so make believe is no longer necessary. We have learned, through much trial and error, that the empirical method for accumulating genuine knowledge far surpasses the old "make it up and declare it to be true" presupposition method. So, I don't "presuppose" that there is no deity. I simply see no point in arbitrarily making up the existence of an invisible Being with infinite powers where no such Being is obvious. In fact, the existence of an infinitely powerful invisible Being that possesses the power to manipulate the laws of physics at will contradicts everything we believe that we know about how the universe works. This is the inevitable face off between make believe and knowledge you see. So I suppose it is fair to say that I do have a bias towards the real world over the world of make believe, yes.
This too is a side bar and has nothing to do with the issue at hand which is the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

Quote:
Gospel Matthew indicates that Jesus was born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great. Herod died at a known time historically, 4 BC. Jesus therefore must have been born circa 5-6 BC, although it could have been even earlier. Luke.3:23 indicates that Jesus was about thirty when he began his ministry, and the Gospels count three Passovers during this period, allowing theologians to conclude that Jesus was about 33 when he died. If Jesus died in 33 AD, that would put his age at about 38, or even older, at the time of his death. The years 27-30 AD provide a more realistic probability for the time of the death of Jesus, based on the Gospel Matthew account.
A.D. 30 as the year in which Jesus was crucified is the most popular view, followed by A.D. 33. Personally I hold to A.D. 33. But it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Quote:
The disciples said they had direct knowledge that a corpse came back to life and then flew away, agreed. Your argument was that the apostles would not have undergone persecution and martyrdom for maintaining a lie. But Act's only mentions the death of a single apostle, James the brother of John. However Acts does indicate that the apostles may have had other incentives for continuing to spread the rumor of the "risen" Jesus above and beyond any personal devotion to the cause of their fallen leader

Acts 4:
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.


Compared to their former back breaking and dangerous occupations as fishermen, or that even more dangerous job of tax collecting, this must have seemed like being on easy street. Early on, all the disciples had to do was wander about and tell stories, and people gave them money. Some personal motivation for continuing on with their story telling, above and beyond a purely spiritual motivation, must be noticed in this. Unless of course you think the likes of Peter Popov, Benny Hinn, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swggart, et al., are genuinely Godly men and care nothing about the money. And if you believe that then believe me, they will happily take all you care to give them.
The issue of how many apostles are mentioned in Acts as having been killed has already been discussed. And it has already been pointed out that Herod probably intended to kill Peter as well, but didn't get the chance too. As well, it is known extra-biblically that James the brother of Jesus was martyred. And tradition indicates that Paul and Peter were both martyred in the 60's.

The disciples did not just wander about and tell stories and pan handle for money. They endured persecution and for some of them, martyrdom. Paul was beaten, stoned and left for dead (Acts 14:19). He endured much hardship in his life for the sake of the gospel. Peter and other unnamed apostles faced death more than once for proclaiming the gospel (Acts chapter 5; 12:1-4). No, the disciples were not living on easy street. They suffered much for their faith. And they suffered for what they knew to be true because they had seen the risen Jesus. And Paul certainly did not give up what he had for something that he considered to be a blasphemy. He had an experience which was to some extent manifested to the men who were with him on the Damascus road.

Quote:
"Learned Christian scholars" do vigorously attest that the story of a corpse coming back to life and then flying away is perfectly probable and likely, this is true. Muslim scholars maintain that the Qur'an is the inerrant Word of God based on their scholarship. Are you aware that the Qur'an indicates that Mohammad rode a flying beast up to Heaven before he died, where he met with the other prophets, the angels and God Himself? Are these things obviously true because people have claimed that they are so? The evidence "learned Christian scholars" employ for their learned conclusions is the same evidence you are presenting here. His followers said so. Because that is all the evidence that exists.
The Christian faith is based on historical events. The apostles were real people who were with Jesus during His ministry. They did not understand Jesus' repeated statements that He was to be killed and that He would rise again in three days. And they weren't expecting that He would rise again. But something happened which caused them to spend the rest of their lives proclaiming the risen Jesus even though they endured suffering, and for at least some of them, martyrdom, and certainly the threat of being killed. Something happened that caused Jesus' brother James who had not believed that Jesus was the Messiah during His ministry to suddenly come to believe in Him and be martyred for his faith. Something happened to change Paul from an enemy of the Christians to a believer himself who suffered much during his life for his proclamation of the gospel. The Christian faith did not arise from a vaccuum. It is based on historical events. Again, the early disciples knew whether what they were proclaiming was true or not. And no one is willing to spend the rest of their life suffering and facing the threat of death for what they know to be a lie.
Quote:
The NT is just a book, and I have always been an excellent reader.
Even without appealing to inerrancy or divine inspiration, but merely approaching the 27 letters of the New Testament as ancient documents, they deserve to be treated with the same respect as historians give to any other ancient work. They were written by people who not only claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, but who spent the rest of their lives willing to suffer and die for what they were proclaiming.

Last edited by Michael Way; 01-13-2016 at 05:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2016, 11:55 PM
 
Location: USA
4,747 posts, read 2,330,716 times
Reputation: 1292
Reply to Mike555

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
The claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away is implausible in the same way that the story of a team of flying reindeer is implausible. The decision by you or anyone else to believe that either of these things are true does not change the fact that they are implausible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I intend for this to be my last post on this thread. This discussion has gone on long enough, and it is too time consuming. I am not going to convince you, and you are certainly not going to convince me.
My intention was never to convince you. I had no expectation that was possible. My intention was to open up the completely unrealistic nature of your beliefs and your claims, to spread them out for all to see, and to demonstrate exactly how virtually everything that Christianity claims to be true about itself is nothing but a vast interconnected network of baseless assertions, unfounded assumptions, and unsupported traditions. "Upon further review" Christian claims invariably prove to have no foundation of solid fact at all to support them. The longer we continue the more effective I can be at doing that. But if you choose to discontinue I can not stop you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
That assertion is simply the assertion of a person who has an anti-supernaturalistic bias which you admit that you have. The resurrection of Jesus is not in the least bit implausible to those who are able to accept the reality of the supernatural. This argument amounts to no more than 'yes it is,' 'no it isn't,' 'yes it is,' 'no it isn't.' The issue is whether there is historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. And there is a vast amount of material in the area of resurrection studies. An objective person will study the material and decide whether or not he agrees that the evidence supports the resurrection of Jesus.
The existence of Santa Claus is not implausible to young children at all either. It makes absolute sense to them... until they realize that it was nonsense all along and stop believing it. You believe that a corpse came back to life and flew away. You believe that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem. You believe that the Earth once stopped rotating on it axis for about a 24 hours period and then resumed it's natural rotation. This makes Santa and his flying team seem almost reasonable. You claim that a man who lived and died 2,000 years ago is about to come back at any time now, despite the undeniable fact that everyone who lived 2,000 DIED, and is still DEAD. That's not an empty claim, that is a pure fact. As a Christian you have an ongoing record of being right which is exactly zero for 2,000 years. How wrong is it possible to be? So when I suggest that your beliefs and your claims are implausible, I have ALL of the evidence on my side. When I say your claims are implausible I am actually trying to be polite. The term I would prefer to use if I could in reference to stories of flying reanimated corpses, Matthew's Night of the Living Dead tale, and the "Day the Earth Stood Still" story in Joshua, would be a reference to male bovine excrement. Utter nonsense taken to the limits of utter nonsense. But I am not allowed.

You have bought the entire package hook line and sinker. That's your choice and your privilege. But declaring that it is plausible does not make it plausible. The things you believe in are the definition of implausible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
As Paul himself stated, he acted on the authority and commission of the chief priests (Acts 26:10-12). This was already pointed out in post #65.
That's actually useful. I have been searching for that reference. So thank you for that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
While James the brother of John was the only one of the original 12 apostles mentioned in Acts to have been martyred, (and why would you imply that I would try to deny it), as I already pointed out in post #53, Herod also had Peter arrested and seems to have intended to kill him as well, but was prevented from doing so (Acts 12:3-10). Herod had Peter arrested after he saw that the death of James the brother of John had pleased the Jews (Acts 12:1-4). So it seems likely that Herod had Peter arrested with the intention of killing him.
Acts 12 indicates that James was executed by Herod, but it doesn't specify the charges. Perhaps it's time to point out the possibility that the Jewish authorities may have had more reasons to bring charges against the likes of James and Peter then a simple difference of opinion over religion.

Acts.5
[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
[2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
[5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
[6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
[7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
[8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
[9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
[10] Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.


The extortion/murder of Ananias and his wife Sapphira at the hands of Peter and his band of thugs give us good reason to suppose that some of these folks had other crimes to face charges for then mere religious differences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Actually, it's the opposite. The historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is evidence that God exists. The reason being is because, as scholars have long maintained, none of the naturalistic explanations are adequate to explain why the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus. The swoon theory doesn't work, the hallucination theory doesn't work, the mistaken identity theory doesn't work. The disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus because they actually did. Oh, there are other reasons why I believe that God exists, but the resurrection of Jesus is certainly one of them.
There is no "evidence that God exists. One simply has to assume it be so. In science evidence is observed, and tested through experimentation. Then a conclusion is reached. If further information indicates that the original conclusion needs to be expanded or modified, that is seen as a good thing. Science is only interested in discovering what is true, and the closer we come to the full truth the better. In religion, things are declared to be true dogmatically. No further investigation is necessary, because none is considered possible. Contradictory information which leads to alternate conclusions is considered heresy. This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
A.D. 30 as the year in which Jesus was crucified is the most popular view, followed by A.D. 33. Personally I hold to A.D. 33. But it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
The Catholic church concluded that it happened in 33 AD. But we have better sources of historical information now than when they came to that conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The issue of how many apostles are mentioned in Acts as having been killed has already been discussed. And it has already been pointed out that Herod probably intended to kill Peter as well, but didn't get the chance too. As well, it is known extra-biblically that James the brother of Jesus was martyred. And tradition indicates that Paul and Peter were both martyred in the 60's.
Yes, in popular Christian tradition Paul was beheaded in Rome, and Peter was crucified upside down in Rome. But there is no historical evidence of it. It is a popular notion among Christians that they were martyred, but no one really knows. Presumably they died at some point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The Christian faith is based on historical events. The apostles were real people who were with Jesus during His ministry. They did not understand Jesus' repeated statements that He was to be killed and that He would rise again in three days. And they weren't expecting that He would rise again. But something happened which caused them to spend the rest of their lives proclaiming the risen Jesus even though they endured suffering, and for at least some of them, martyrdom, and certainly the threat of being killed. Something happened that caused Jesus' brother James who had not believed that Jesus was the Messiah during His ministry to suddenly come to believe in Him and be martyred for his faith.
The apostles were real flesh and blood individuals with a real flesh and blood agenda. This is perfectly common among humans. What's not perfectly common for a corpse to come back to life and fly away. There is no actual evidence that this unbelievable thing occurred, and a perfectly good natural explanation for the whole thing right at hand. And there is also that ongoing 2,000 record of Christian total futility to consider.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Something happened to change Paul from an enemy of the Christians to a believer himself who suffered much during his life for his proclamation of the gospel. The Christian faith did not arise from a vaccuum. It is based on historical events. Again, the early disciples knew whether what they were proclaiming was true or not. And no one is willing to spend the rest of their life suffering and facing the threat of death for what they know to be a lie.
I suspect that this may be true. I have no real reason to suppose that Paul ACTUALLY had a conversation with a dead man though. But in Paul's mind it was real enough. Between his dehydrated delusions and his gratitude to his Christian benefactor for saving his life, Paul became a changed man. Seems reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Even without appealing to inerrancy or divine inspiration, but merely approaching the 27 letters of the New Testament as ancient documents, they deserve to be treated with the same respect as historians give to any other ancient work. They were written by people who not only claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, but who spent the rest of their lives willing to suffer and die for what they were proclaiming.
Fine, and I concur. Now, what other generally accepted event in history can you name that is predicated on a supernatural occurrence? There are NONE. We should apply the same standards evenly.

Finally, it is becoming more and more common today for people to declare that the story of Jesus is based entirely on myth, and that no such individual ever existed. Personally it seems to me that the story of the crucified carpenter appeared too abruptly, and the most reasonable explanation is that Jesus was an actual person. Can the NT be considered history book? NO! It was never intended to be an unbiased history book. I was written to sell Christian claims. As I just pointed out, no other historical events are predicated on supernatural claims. In modern times we have weeded out the myth from the plausible facts. Does this entirely invalidate the NT as a source of possible history? Every effort to recover the historical Yeshua has failed. The popular concept of Jesus is buried under centuries of Christian myth. As for the NT, those portions which could be true, might be true. There is no real way to know. Those portions that defy all reason, logic and experience, have no viable historical value at all, except for a need to understand what the claims themselves are all about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2016, 02:44 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,504,666 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
You have swallowed too many conspiracy theories.
You sem to be able to swallow all sorts of absurd conspiracy theories - like science suppressing the facts about Palaeontology.

But one that (if taken as read - I don't) only makes sense as a conspiracy is rejected by your pretty much out of hand. We know why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
How did the writers of the gospels know the Roman guards statements at the tomb Jesus was entombed in is accurate?
One writer reported a (rather improbable) Roman Guard. None of the others mentiion it. Therefore it is a feasible supposition that Matthew made it up in order to stomp on the tale he reports as going around in his time that the disciples stole the body.

Quote:
One or more of the Roman guards became Christian after witnessing Christ's resurrection from the dead.
Really? Care to give chapter and verse?

Quote:
This is most likely what they reported to Matthew:
We were given a detail to guard the tomb so His disciples would not steal the body. We were stationed right at the tomb so no one could get by us.
Then, all of a sudden, out of nowhere a great quake occurred! This quake was caused by a brilliant messenger of the Lord descending out of heaven! This messenger went right through our detail and rolled the stone away from the mouth of the tomb. Then that messenger sat on that stone, brilliant as could be! We were really scared to death! We have never seen anything like this! His appearance was brilliant like lightening and what he was wearing was white as snow! Then we witnessed who you call the Christ, walk out of that tomb ALIVE! And He told us to not fear. We were quaking in our sandals as if we had died for fear of what we were witnessing! Many of us now believe! The Jewish priests tried to pay us off and told us to tell anyone who asked that we fell asleep and the disciples came and took the body. But we couldn't take the money or lie about it. And if we did tell people that, we could be crucified for dereliction of duty. So we feared Pilate more than the priests.

Matthew 28:2-4 And lo! a great quake occurred, for a messenger of the Lord, descending out of heaven and approaching, rolls away the stone from the door and sat upon it." (3) Now he was, to the perception, as lightning, and his apparel white as if snow." (4) Now from fear of him the keepers quaked and became as the dead.
And nobody but Matthew knew anything about irt, just as they knew nothing about the Quake on the Friday with tombs opening and zombies shanking around the streets. Just as nobody knew about Sinking Simon, the Shekel -eating fish and for that matter the mobile star and Herod's attempt to eliminate Jesus.

The only conclusion by anyone not blinded by Faith is that Matthew made this stuff up. Dismiss it if you like and throw out the stock accusations. The evidence in the actual Gospel speaks clear. Fabrication.
We know why - because of the topic. It is the single tenet of Christianity that can't be dispensed with. The trinity, not sinning, prayer and worship, even God's goodness can be done without. But Faith in the resurrection from Paul to today is the one single thing that makes for a Christian. If one doesn't believe that, they are no more a Christian than Jefferson was.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-14-2016 at 02:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2016, 08:37 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,885,973 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
You sem to be able to swallow all sorts of absurd conspiracy theories - like science suppressing the facts about Palaeontology.


Quote:
But one that (if taken as read - I don't) only makes sense as a conspiracy is rejected by your pretty much out of hand. We know why.
The conspiracy was that the Roman soldiers were to be paid by the priests to cover up the resurrection.



Quote:
One writer reported a (rather improbable) Roman Guard. None of the others mentiion it. Therefore it is a feasible supposition that Matthew made it up in order to stomp on the tale he reports as going around in his time that the disciples stole the body.
Each writer of the four accounts mentions things which may or may not be in other accounts. Thus proves there was no collusion on the part of the gospel writers.

Quote:
Really? Care to give chapter and verse?
It just makes sense they would since one Roman centurion at the cross came to belief.


Quote:
And nobody but Matthew knew anything about irt, just as they knew nothing about the Quake on the Friday with tombs opening and zombies shanking around the streets. Just as nobody knew about Sinking Simon, the Shekel -eating fish and for that matter the mobile star and Herod's attempt to eliminate Jesus.
Like I said, each writer is concentrating on certain aspects of Christ's life. They don't all have to say the exact same thing to be correct. And if they did all say the exact same thing you'd be shouting that they were all colluding. I have brought this up many times. A murder happened. Four people are taken into custody to find what happened. Each is in a different room being interrogated.
One says she saw the man get out of the car and shoot the other man.
One says she only saw the man shoot the other man.
One says she only saw the man running to the getaway car.
One says she didn't see anything.
Are they all lying? Yet the accounts are just like the above scenario.

Quote:
The only conclusion by anyone not blinded by Faith is that Matthew made this stuff up. Dismiss it if you like and throw out the stock accusations. The evidence in the actual Gospel speaks clear. Fabrication.
We know why - because of the topic. It is the single tenet of Christianity that can't be dispensed with. The trinity, not sinning, prayer and worship, even God's goodness can be done without. But Faith in the resurrection from Paul to today is the one single thing that makes for a Christian. If one doesn't believe that, they are no more a Christian than Jefferson was.
"Blinded by faith"? That's a new one. Once I received faith I saw the light. No more darkness no more night. Praise the Lord I saw the light.

Nothing was fabricated. Only those blinded by unbelief would suggest as much. I didn't know the bible spoke about the Trinity.
Also, it is not just belief in the resurrection which makes one a Christian but that Christ died for our sins, was entombed and roused the third day.
Had you lived back then and witnessed what the Romans guards did, you wouldn't be writing what you are now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2016, 09:30 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,885,973 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
Here is what Gospel Matthew has to say about the guard at the tomb.

Matt.27
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

No mention of there being a Roman guard at the sepulchre is made whatsoever. What does Pilate say? "You have a watch(guard), go ahead and make it as secure as you can." He gave the priest permission to guard the tomb using their own men. Which is clearly indicated in the next verse. The priests set seals on the stone, and the priests set the watch.



From where exactly did you derive this assertion?
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."

(LEB) 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).

Since there were SOME of the guards went into the city and reported Christ coming out of the tomb, it stands to reason that these "some" were part of a contingent of soldiers guarding the tomb.

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.
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.

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.

And by Pilate saying "You have a detail", this is the same as him saying, I am giving you a detail of soldiers.

Romans soldiers, if found derelict of duty would more than likely face being executed as historians have already pointed out. So it was in their best interest to not have the body stolen.

Here is another point to consider:

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."

Now then, if these were just Temple Guards, why would they worry about what Pilate would do to them?I seriously doubt that the Jewish guards needed to worry about what the governor thought. The ones who really needed to worry would be Roman Guards.

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.

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).

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.”


Personally I believe that there were Roman Guards and Temple Guards guarding Jesus as He lay dead in the tomb.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2016, 11:00 AM
 
18,191 posts, read 16,776,281 times
Reputation: 7422
My discourse with Mike began with Mike claiming that the disciples suffered and were martyred for their faith. When Mike uses that phrase "The disciples were...." it is assumed he is saying "ALL the disciples suffered and were martyred for their faith, a patently UNTRUE statement given what evidence we have. Mike eventually acceded to the scriptures verifying that only James was recorded as having been martyred; that it is church tradition that peter and Paul were martyred but we have no historic record that mentions their fate. From there, the rest of the apostle's martyrdoms rests strictly on church tradition, local lore, rumors and the like. So Mike has been worked down from 12 to 1 apostles that can somewhat historically be proved (Bible and Josephus' Antiquities) to have been martyred for their belief in Jesus.


Giving the complete lack of historic record to undergird such a sweeping statement most Christian apologists bandy about that ALL the apostles died for their faith, we can see in fact that it was really only 1. Tradition suggests 2 others and absolutely nothing remotely suggests the fate of the other 9. They may very well have returned to their occupations as fishermen and tax collectors after all this was done.


To get Mike from 12 down to 1 proven martyrdom and 2 possible martyrdoms and the rest "I can't prove it but I believe it" was a real accomplishment if you know Mike. But I cannot take credit. It was Tired of the Nonsense, and their epic debate starting about halfway through this thread should go down in CD history as one of the finest intellectual slugfests between believer and non-believer ever done here. I encourage anyone interested in reading some fine arguments on both sides to start with post #47 and work their way to the end at post #75. Don't miss this incredible opportunity. The issues addressed by both men in here is breathtaking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2016, 12:07 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,923 posts, read 26,155,288 times
Reputation: 16082
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
My discourse with Mike began with Mike claiming that the disciples suffered and were martyred for their faith. When Mike uses that phrase "The disciples were...." it is assumed he is saying "ALL the disciples suffered and were martyred for their faith, a patently UNTRUE statement given what evidence we have. Mike eventually acceded to the scriptures verifying that only James was recorded as having been martyred; that it is church tradition that peter and Paul were martyred but we have no historic record that mentions their fate. From there, the rest of the apostle's martyrdoms rests strictly on church tradition, local lore, rumors and the like. So Mike has been worked down from 12 to 1 apostles that can somewhat historically be proved (Bible and Josephus' Antiquities) to have been martyred for their belief in Jesus.
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?

Last edited by Michael Way; 01-14-2016 at 12:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top