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.
Well, that's open to debate, the accounts I've read are that they all died martyr's deaths, but even if they all didn't, enough did to make a loud statement that went into all the world, Amen? Peace
Yes, it has been a subject of debate. Personally, I believe that with the exception of the apostle John they were all martyred, but it can't be proven. At least as far as I know.
Last edited by Michael Way; 03-07-2016 at 04:04 PM..
You keep ignoring the fact that it was not until after Paul had had his encounter with Jesus that he spent three days without food and water. He had not gone without food or water before having the encounter and he was not delusional when he had his encounter.
And again, you keep ignoring the fact that this is PAUL'S version of events. But Paul, having collapsed, sick and confused, was in no position to have an accurate understanding of what occurred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
While Jewish belief (aside from the Sadducees) was of a general resurrection at the end of the age, the belief that anyone would be resurrected before that time was not present.
This is entirely UNTRUE! Belief in the resurrection of the dead was restricted only to the Pharisees and their followers. The majority of Jews had no such belief for the good and proper reason that no such resurrection is offered anywhere in the Torah.
A history lesson is needed here. In 539 BC when Cyrus the Great of Persia, who was a follower of the Zoroastrian God Ahura Mazda, defeated Babylon and gave the Jewish people the option to return to their homeland, or to remain within the Persian empire. Many returned, and many stayed. Over the course of the next six centuries there was a steady emigration of those with Jewish background from Persia back to Jerusalem. They would become a distinctly separate group within Jewish culture because of the Persian influenced religious beliefs they held in common which their Jewish beliefs. They would be known as Pharisees, or Farsi (Parsi; Persians).
"Although a definite borrowing is still impossible to prove, the resemblances between Zoroastrianism and Judaism are numerous and probably took shape during the exile. First of all the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly,the figure of the Messiah, originally a future king of Israel who would save his people from oppression evolved,in Deutro-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshant(Savior). Thirdly, the entities that came to surround Yahweh, such as His wisdom and His spirit are comparable to the arch angels escorting Ahura Mazda; other points of comparison include the doctrine of the millenia; the Last Judgement; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the resurrection, the final transformation of the Earth; paradise of Heaven on Earth or in Heaven. Christianity seems to owe many features to Iran over and above those inherited from Judaism. Among others are probably the belief in guardian angels, resurrection and the heavenly journey of the soul."(Encyclopedia Americana,"Zoroastrianism"pp.813-815).
Acts 23:
[8] For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And again, neither were any of the other disciples who saw the resurrected Jesus.
Some of the disciples claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. Just as the Jewish priests suspected that they intended to do. The question really hinges on just how reliable the claim of seeing a resurrected dead man who subsequently flies off up into the sky really is. And of course there is nothing remotely reliable about such a story. That some of the disciples of Jesus may have been circulating this story may well be true, and explains the nature of the origins of the rumor and of Christianity itself. Matt.27:64 tells us specifically that the priests suspected the followers of Jesus of planning just such a hoax. We can clearly see, even from the details at hand, the the disciples had the means, motive and opportunity to relocate the body of Jesus and to then subsequently spread the rumor that he had risen from the dead. It's a perfectly natural explanation. The only thing wrong with it, is that it is not the explanation that you prefer. But your explanation is that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and subsequently flew away. Nothing you can do or say can make that particular explanation plausible or likely. You have to promote it entirely as an act of faith, and not as a well known historical fact simply because the followers of Jesus claimed that it was true. And what we will see, upon a detailed investigation, is that EVERY FACET of the evidence that you will now attempt to provide will fall completely apart upon examination of it. Leaving you with a story of a flying reanimated corpse, but absolutely nothing resembling genuine evidence to sustain it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The disciples were in a position to know if what they were proclaiming about the risen Jesus was true or not. People are not willing to go to their deaths for a lie.
Please provide a list of those who went to their deaths and where in scripture we might all read these details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I encourage you to try to set aside your skepticism and objectively look at the evidence. But if you can't or won't, that's on you. And I will leave you with that.
And I encourage you to set aside your gullibility and consider these claims you are making skeptically as any normal interested third party might do, rather than as someone who has been indoctrinated their entire lives to accept a particular, and incredibly unrealistic, point of view as being beyond question.
And again, you keep ignoring the fact that this is PAUL'S version of events. But Paul, having collapsed, sick and confused, was in no position to have an accurate understanding of what occurred.
This is entirely UNTRUE! Belief in the resurrection of the dead was restricted only to the Pharisees and their followers. The majority of Jews had no such belief for the good and proper reason that no such resurrection is offered anywhere in the Torah.
A history lesson is needed here. In 539 BC when Cyrus the Great of Persia, who was a follower of the Zoroastrian God Ahura Mazda, defeated Babylon and gave the Jewish people the option to return to their homeland, or to remain within the Persian empire. Many returned, and many stayed. Over the course of the next six centuries there was a steady emigration of those with Jewish background from Persia back to Jerusalem. They would become a distinctly separate group within Jewish culture because of the Persian influenced religious beliefs they held in common which their Jewish beliefs. They would be known as Pharisees, or Farsi (Parsi; Persians).
No, it is not untrue, and I doubt if you even understood what I said. Among the Jews who believed in a resurrection, the belief was that of a general resurrection at the end of the age. There were various groups among the Jews and while the Sadducees rejected the belief in a resurrection there is no reason to think that the belief was restricted to the Pharisees. Daniel 12:2 which speaks of the resurrection at the end of the age was not written by the Pharisees. There was no belief that anyone would be resurrected before the end of the age. The disciples were not expecting Jesus to be resurrected before the end of the age along with everyone else. In fact, Thomas wouldn't even believe the other disciples when they told him that Jesus had appeared to them.
And I've already provided the names of those disciples we know to have been martyred. The death of James, the brother of John is recorded in Acts. The death of James, the brother of Jesus is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews. The deaths of Peter and Paul are recorded in other extra-Biblical sources of the early church fathers.
Such is the extent of your unbelief that Jesus could have been resurrected that you choose to believe that the disciples stole the body and then lied about seeing the risen Jesus, and that they were willing to die for their lie, and that Paul had an hallucination.
It makes no difference to me whether you accept the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus or not. I've simply provided the evidence and have given you a source for further study. Do with it what you will.
Last edited by Michael Way; 03-07-2016 at 06:22 PM..
Reason: Removed a comma.
No, it is not untrue, and I doubt if you even understood what I said. Among the Jews who believed in a resurrection, the belief was that of a general resurrection at the end of the age. There were various groups among the Jews and while the Sadducees rejected the belief in a resurrection there is no reason to think that the belief was restricted to the Pharisees. Daniel 12:2 which speaks of the resurrection at the end of the age was not written by the Pharisees. There was no belief that anyone would be resurrected before the end of the age. The disciples were not expecting Jesus to be resurrected before the end of the age along with everyone else. In fact, Thomas wouldn't even believe the other disciples when they told him that Jesus had appeared to them.
Wikipedia
Dating
Daniel's exclusion from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, suggests it was not known at that time, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.
The prophecies contained in the book are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164.
Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel
Since you will undoubtedly disparage Wikipedia, there are other more authoritative sources available.
"The author was not familiar with the neo-Babylonian period, but he is very familiar with the Seculid (312-63 BC) and Ptolemaic (305 BC-30 BC) kingdoms just before the outbreak of the Maccabean wars (circa 166 BC). This is most easily explained on the assumption that he depended for his knowledge of the neo-Babylonian period on vague memories which had been handed down by oral tradition. Thus he makes Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar, although Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and never king of Babylon. THe author shows no knowledge of any other Babylonian rulers."
"An examination of the vision of Daniel shows that the information is exact up to a point between 167, the year in which Antiochus Epihanes departed on an expidition to Egypt, and 164, the year of death, which had not occurred when the passage was written. (Dictionary of the Bible, by father John L. McKenzie, SJ; Daniel, pg 171).
Although the Book of Daniel contains stories of the Babylonian exile, it was clearly completed circa 164 BC. Well after the end of the Babylonian exile, circa 539 BC. It should be noted that prophesies can be much more easily confirmed as accurate, if they are written well after the fact.
Popular belief in an end time dates at least back to the 2nd millennium BC, and perhaps even earlier. It was a major part of Zoroastrian doctrine at a time when the Jewish Torah contained no such doctrine. After the Babylonian exile end of times beliefs came to be fused into Jewish belief. The end of times doctrine has been extremely popular for the last 4,000 years or so, and still is today among those with the classic end of times death wish. Meanwhile the world continues on.
And I've already provided the names of those disciples we know to have been martyred. The death of James, the brother of John is recorded in Acts. The death of James, the brother of Jesus is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews. The deaths of Peter and Paul are recorded in other extra-Biblical sources of the early church fathers.
Let's just get this out of the way. It is true that Christians began to come under increasingly heavy persecution from the Romans after the great fire which destroyed Rome in 64 AD. Prior to that however it was not a crime to be a Christian under Roman law and Christians and Christianity were rather under the radar of Rome. In other words, prior to 64 AD, Rome could have cared less about Christians. It was just another Jewish sect to Rome.
Acts of the apostles begins shortly after the death of Jesus, which occurred circa 27-30 AD. Chapter 12 of Acts begins:
Acts.12:
[1] Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
[2] And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
This is the one and only apostle killed in scripture, other than, of course, Judas Iscariot. Acts continues on with the arrest of Peter, who then escapes and finds it prudent to leave Jerusalem. At this point ALL of the other apostles disappear from Acts entirely as well, except for Peter who does later return. Acts 12 concludes with the death of Herod Agrippa, who died at a known time historically, 44 AD. At this point Acts becomes almost entirely the Paul story, and concludes with Paul under house arrest in Rome awaiting trial on the minor charge of inciting unrest. This is the end of the Paul story, other than various unfounded traditions, one of which has Paul acquitted and continuing on with his missionary in Spain. Apostle Paul's Final Missionary Journey Map
The 14 years or so which elapsed between the execution of Jesus and the execution of James at the hands of Herod, amounted to a couple of arrests, a beating, and the death of a disciple named Stephan at the hands of a mob. That's the extent of the horrific persecution that you invariably claim occurred. In fact Acts 4:34-37 indicates that the apostles actually had it pretty darned good for awhile during that period.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
It makes no difference to me whether you accept the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus or not. I've simply provided the evidence and have given you a source for further study. Do with it what you will.
Does it somehow seem to you that I am NOT already perfectly aware of this information?
Wikipedia
Dating
Daniel's exclusion from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, suggests it was not known at that time, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.
The prophecies contained in the book are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164.
Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel
Since you will undoubtedly disparage Wikipedia, there are other more authoritative sources available.
"The author was not familiar with the neo-Babylonian period, but he is very familiar with the Seculid (312-63 BC) and Ptolemaic (305 BC-30 BC) kingdoms just before the outbreak of the Maccabean wars (circa 166 BC). This is most easily explained on the assumption that he depended for his knowledge of the neo-Babylonian period on vague memories which had been handed down by oral tradition. Thus he makes Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar, although Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and never king of Babylon. THe author shows no knowledge of any other Babylonian rulers."
"An examination of the vision of Daniel shows that the information is exact up to a point between 167, the year in which Antiochus Epihanes departed on an expidition to Egypt, and 164, the year of death, which had not occurred when the passage was written. (Dictionary of the Bible, by father John L. McKenzie, SJ; Daniel, pg 171).
Although the Book of Daniel contains stories of the Babylonian exile, it was clearly completed circa 164 BC. Well after the end of the Babylonian exile, circa 539 BC. It should be noted that prophesies can be much more easily confirmed as accurate, if they are written well after the fact.
Popular belief in an end time dates at least back to the 2nd millennium BC, and perhaps even earlier. It was a major part of Zoroastrian doctrine at a time when the Jewish Torah contained no such doctrine. After the Babylonian exile end of times beliefs came to be fused into Jewish belief. The end of times doctrine has been extremely popular for the last 4,000 years or so, and still is today among those with the classic end of times death wish. Meanwhile the world continues on.
The Book of Daniel was written by Daniel during the Babylonian captivity. The debate between scholars with regard to that fact has been long going. I'll not get into it here.
Quote:
Let's just get this out of the way. It is true that Christians began to come under increasingly heavy persecution from the Romans after the great fire which destroyed Rome in 64 AD. Prior to that however it was not a crime to be a Christian under Roman law and Christians and Christianity were rather under the radar of Rome. In other words, prior to 64 AD, Rome could have cared less about Christians. It was just another Jewish sect to Rome.
Acts of the apostles begins shortly after the death of Jesus, which occurred circa 27-30 AD. Chapter 12 of Acts begins:
Acts.12:
[1] Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
[2] And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
This is the one and only apostle killed in scripture, other than, of course, Judas Iscariot. Acts continues on with the arrest of Peter, who then escapes and finds it prudent to leave Jerusalem. At this point ALL of the other apostles disappear from Acts entirely as well, except for Peter who does later return. Acts 12 concludes with the death of Herod Agrippa, who died at a known time historically, 44 AD. At this point Acts becomes almost entirely the Paul story, and concludes with Paul under house arrest in Rome awaiting trial on the minor charge of inciting unrest. This is the end of the Paul story, other than various unfounded traditions, one of which has Paul acquitted and continuing on with his missionary in Spain. Apostle Paul's Final Missionary Journey Map
The 14 years or so which elapsed between the execution of Jesus and the execution of James at the hands of Herod, amounted to a couple of arrests, a beating, and the death of a disciple named Stephan at the hands of a mob. That's the extent of the horrific persecution that you invariably claim occurred. In fact Acts 4:34-37 indicates that the apostles actually had it pretty darned good for awhile during that period.
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.
Christians were under persecution by the Jewish chief priests long before the Roman persecutions began.
Paul had his encounter with the risen Jesus some two to four years after Jesus was crucified. But Paul stated that before his conversion he was responsible for the arrests and deaths of many Christians.
Acts 26:10 "And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them. 11] "And as I punished them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them, I kept pursuing them even to foreign cities.
There was heavy persecution of the Christians in the very early years of the church by the chief priests, resulting in the deaths of many Christians.
Peter had been arrested by Herod just after James the brother of John had been put to death, and probably would have been killed himself if he had not been rescued (Acts 12:1-10).
Paul relates the sufferings he himself endured as a result of proclaiming the gospel.
2 Cor. 11:23 Are they servants of Christ?-- I speak as if insane-- I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. 24] Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. 25] Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. 26] I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; 27] I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.
In 1 Corinthians 4:9 Paul speaks of ''us apostles . . . as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world . . .''
In 1 Corinthians 4:11-13 Paul relates how the apostles are both hungry and thirsty, poorly clothed, roughly treated, homeless, persecuted, slandered.
Again in 2 Corinthians 4:11 Paul relates how the apostles are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake.
And so, no, the apostles did not, to use your own words, ''have it pretty darned good.''
They suffered, and in at least some cases, died for their proclamation of the Gospel. Again, men do not die for what they know to be a lie, and the apostles were in a position to know if what they were proclaiming was true or not because they had been eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection.
The Book of Daniel was written by Daniel during the Babylonian captivity. The debate between scholars with regard to that fact has been long going. I'll not get into it here.
For some reason "Daniel" was very poorly informed (got them wrong) of the historical events that occurred during the Babylonian captivity (ended 539 BC), but was but was extraordinarily well informed of the events that occurred circa 164 BC. Most historians and scholars have concluded that this indicates that the Book of Daniel was written circa 164 BC. Conservative Christians have declared that the BoD was written during the Babylonian exile because they say so. This is the same group that has declared that the entire Torah/Pentateuch was written my Moses himself, despite the overwhelming scholarly conclusion that the Torah/Pentateuch was the result of the work of several authors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Paul had his encounter with the risen Jesus some two to four years after Jesus was crucified. But Paul stated that before his conversion he was responsible for the arrests and deaths of many Christians.
And yet the apostles traveled about preaching the story of the risen Jesus with rather remarkable impunity, and Paul never once confronted them or made any attempt to arrest them. What were they doing after all, but preaching of the resurrection of the dead, which was an implicit Pharisaic belief? And Paul was a Pharisee. Why would Paul persecute someone for promotion something which was an implicit part of his own beliefs? Which raises the question of what the others who claimed to be Christians were saying that Paul considered unacceptably heretical? The NT does not explain this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Peter had been arrested by Herod just after James the brother of John had been put to death, and probably would have been killed himself if he had not been rescued (Acts 12:1-10).
As we can see from the story of the extortion/murder of Ananias and Sapphira at the hands of Peter and company, the authorities may well have had grounds for arresting some of these people for activities other than religious ones.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
2 Cor. 11:23 Are they servants of Christ?-- I speak as if insane-- I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. 24] Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. 25] Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. 26] I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; 27] I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.
Your claim was that no one would willingly undergo persecution and death for something they knew to be a lie. Whatever difference of opinion there might be concerning the exact nature of Paul's conversion, there is every reason to suppose that it was genuine. Paul was a true believer, and was not promoting something he knew to be a lie. The are numerous reports of Christians being martyred for their beliefs in the second and third centuries. These were clearly true believers as well. Not only are people sometimes willing to die for their beliefs, they are clambering for it.
"When, about 190, the Roman procouncul Antonius persecuted Christians in Asia Minor, hundreds of Montanists, eager for paradise, crowded before his tribunal and asked for martyrdom. He could not accommodate them all; some he executed; but most he dismissed with the words: 'Miserable creatures! If you wish to die are there not ropes and precipices?' The church banned Montanism as a heresy, and in the sixth century Justinian ordered the extinction of the sect. Some Montanists gathered in their churches, set fire to them, and let themselves be burned alive." (The Story of Civilization, Book 3; Caesar and Christ, The Growth of the Church; pg 605, by Will Durant).
Now consider the Heaven's Gate group, who committed mass suicide in 1997 so that their souls could interface with an alien spacecraft that was hiding behind comet Hale-Bopp. History, I am afraid, is filled with stories of just such pathetically gullible "miserable creatures." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven...eligious_group)
For some reason "Daniel" was very poorly informed (got them wrong) of the historical events that occurred during the Babylonian captivity (ended 539 BC), but was but was extraordinarily well informed of the events that occurred circa 164 BC. Most historians and scholars have concluded that this indicates that the Book of Daniel was written circa 164 BC. Conservative Christians have declared that the BoD was written during the Babylonian exile because they say so. This is the same group that has declared that the entire Torah/Pentateuch was written my Moses himself, despite the overwhelming scholarly conclusion that the Torah/Pentateuch was the result of the work of several authors.
Again, I'm not going to get into a discussion on when Daniel was written. Conservative scholars have addressed the issues and claims of skeptics regarding Daniel.
Quote:
And yet the apostles traveled about preaching the story of the risen Jesus with rather remarkable impunity, and Paul never once confronted them or made any attempt to arrest them. What were they doing after all, but preaching of the resurrection of the dead, which was an implicit Pharisaic belief? And Paul was a Pharisee. Why would Paul persecute someone for promotion something which was an implicit part of his own beliefs? Which raises the question of what the others who claimed to be Christians were saying that Paul considered unacceptably heretical? The NT does not explain this.
Paul went after and persecuted many Christians for the same reason that he himself was persecuted when he became a Christian and proclaimed Christ - ''. . . for the name of the Lord Jesus'' (Acts 21:13).
Peter and the others did not escape persecution. I've already point out that Peter had been arrested by order of Herod with the probable intent of putting him to death. And James the brother of John was killed by order of Herod (Acts 12:10).
And since Acts doesn't mention every detail involving Paul's persecution of Christians we don't know if he attempted to arrest Peter and the other apostles or not. However, as stated in Acts 9:1, Saul was breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord.
Quote:
As we can see from the story of the extortion/murder of Ananias and Sapphira at the hands of Peter and company, the authorities may well have had grounds for arresting some of these people for activities other than religious ones.
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.
Your accusation that Peter extorted and murdered Ananias and Sapphira doesn't even deserve to be addressed.
Again, you've already been shown that the apostles, and other disciples were persecuted because they were proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus.
Quote:
Your claim was that no one would willingly undergo persecution and death for something they knew to be a lie. Whatever difference of opinion there might be concerning the exact nature of Paul's conversion, there is every reason to suppose that it was genuine. Paul was a true believer, and was not promoting something he knew to be a lie. The are numerous reports of Christians being martyred for their beliefs in the second and third centuries. These were clearly true believers as well. Not only are people sometimes willing to die for their beliefs, they are clambering for it.
My claim? My claim? In what world is it normal for people to make up a lie and then willingly endure suffering for the rest of their lives, and in at least some cases undergo martydom in defending that lie?
Quote:
"When, about 190, the Roman procouncul Antonius persecuted Christians in Asia Minor, hundreds of Montanists, eager for paradise, crowded before his tribunal and asked for martyrdom. He could not accommodate them all; some he executed; but most he dismissed with the words: 'Miserable creatures! If you wish to die are there not ropes and precipices?' The church banned Montanism as a heresy, and in the sixth century Justinian ordered the extinction of the sect. Some Montanists gathered in their churches, set fire to them, and let themselves be burned alive." (The Story of Civilization, Book 3; Caesar and Christ, The Growth of the Church; pg 605, by Will Durant).
Now consider the Heaven's Gate group, who committed mass suicide in 1997 so that their souls could interface with an alien spacecraft that was hiding behind comet Hale-Bopp. History, I am afraid, is filled with stories of just such pathetically gullible "miserable creatures." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven...eligious_group)
This has no relationship to the issue which is that the apostles were in a position to actually know if what they were proclaiming was true or not. They saw what they believed was the risen Jesus. And none of the naturalistic explanations that skeptics have come up with in an attempt to explain that work. The best of the naturalistic explanations is the hallucination theory. But it doesn't work because Jesus appeared on a number of different occasions over a forty day period, under different circumstances, to many people. He spoke to them, He ate with them. Furthermore, they didn't believe He would be resurrected. The apostles didn't even believe the women when they reported that they saw the risen Jesus. Then after the apostles did see the risen Jesus, except for Thomas who wasn't present on that occasion, they told Thomas about the encounter and he didn't believe them. Jesus had to appear to him before he believed. The conditions for even an individual hallucination, much less a mass hallucination simply didn't exist.
All right. Enough of this. I've taken as much time on this with you as I care to. I've provided more than sufficient information regarding the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and have directed you to further resurrection studies by scholars. Specifically Gary Habermas - Dr. Gary R. Habermas - Online Resource for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. But there are others as well. You can pursue those studies or not. I am done with this discussion with you now.
This has no relationship to the issue which is that the apostles were in a position to actually know if what they were proclaiming was true or not. They saw what they believed was the risen Jesus. And none of the naturalistic explanations that skeptics have come up with in an attempt to explain that work.
This whole discussion really boils down to this. Chapter 12 of Acts indicates that shortly before his death in 44 AD, Herod Agrippa began to systematically persecute the disciples of Jesus, starting with the execution of James, and the arrest of Peter. After Peter's escape from prison, and with the onset of genuine persecution and danger, all of the apostles completely disappeared from the story, other than Peter himself, who does eventually return to Jerusalem.
Gal.1
[17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
[18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
[19] But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Gal.1 is thought to be, possibly, Paul's earliest letter, and is generally dated circa 50-52 AD. When they genuinely did begin to undergo persecution from the Jewish authorities the remaining original apostles, save Peter, disappeared from the story entirely. That was sometime circa 44 or perhaps slightly earlier. We are now dealing largely with a second generation of believers who, like Paul, were never witness to any of the events detailed in the Gospels, including the claimed post crucifixion appearances, and would therefore have had no personal knowledge of it being a hoax and a false rumor. THEY TRULY BELIEVE IT, just as you do. Those who WOULD HAVE HAD SUCH KNOWLEDGE have disappeared from the story. All but Peter. You are attempting to make the case that people would not willingly undergo systematic persecution for a claim which they knew to be a lie. And you are correct. The evidence shows that those who were in a position to have known that the story of the resurrection of Jesus was merely a false rumor promptly disappeared when the persecution began to get serious. This leaves behind individuals like Paul, WHO TRULY BELIEVED, and as a result were prepared to undergo such persecution and harsh treatment for their beliefs. As true believers inevitably will.
Your accusation that Peter extorted and murdered Ananias and Sapphira doesn't even deserve to be addressed.
Acts5:
[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.
When you upbraid someone for holding back a sum of money, inform them that they are just about to die for holding back that sum of money, and then subsequently that person is DEAD, in these parts that is called FIRST DEGREE MURDER.
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 03-08-2016 at 04:04 PM..
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.
