FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-17-2001, 04:09 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
I suppose if we want another non-NT source for the resurrection, we could use the Gospel of Peter.

Like Polycarp I am at a bit of a loss as to what is being asked for here. Could we maybe have a listing of what is considered to be acceptable and unacceptable sources from pug or other sceptics? Is the entire NT Canon rejected? If so, why and on the basis of what evidence? Why is Clement 1 being rejected? Because it is Christian? What is the evidence that it is an unreliable source? Also, since no one I am familiar with considers the Josephus source on the death of James to be interpolated by Christians, why has it been rejected again? Finally, how does one square the notion of the honest pursuit of history with the a priori rejection of sources, solely because they are Christian in origin?

Nomad
</font>
Nomad, don't you know that historians never look at Roman sources when studying ceasar? Or Greek sources when studying Plato? Or Muslim sources to study Mohammed?
 
Old 04-17-2001, 04:44 PM   #12
Opus1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 177
Post

Could a Christian please produce a text stating that any early Christian disciples died specifically for their beliefs in a physical resurrection, not a spiritual resurrection (which is what I believed occured)?

That is, I'm looking for something like this:

And they said unto James, "Do you believe that your brother Jesus bodily rose from the dead after he had been crucified?

And James replied "Yes, I do."

And they said to him, "Recant of that blasphemy and we will save you. If you do not, you will die."

James did not recant his testimony, so they stoned him to death.

Obviously, you'll never find something that blatant. But vague references to Christians who died for "reason of jealousy and envy" (as Clement puts it) hardly solidifies the assertion that all the early Christians believed in a physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
Opus1 is offline  
Old 04-17-2001, 04:47 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Polycarp said:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Do you only believe information on Islam from non-Islamic sources? Do you only believe Roman history written by non-Roman historians? Do you only believe information on Democrats written by non-Democrats?</font>
I’m simply trying to see what information is out there. In regards to the specific issue that I was searching out the answer, the bible doesn’t say much on it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Seriously, what other ancient sources besides Christian ones would've cared about the deaths of some miserable fishermen from Galilee who ran around talking about a guy who rose from the dead? None. Its like saying you'll only consider something in Roman history to be historical if its written by a non-Roman. This is very poor methodology.</font>
I’m simply trying to seek out information for a very specific topic. You didn’t provide me with that information. Certain claims are being made by Christians. I am simply seeing if they are justified in making those claims. SO far, I haven’t seen much evidence that they can legitimately make those claims.

Nomad said:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Like Polycarp I am at a bit of a loss as to what is being asked for here. Could we maybe have a listing of what is considered to be acceptable and unacceptable sources from pug or other sceptics?</font>
I am asking for a very simple thing: Evidence that would support the claim that 11 out of the 12 disciples were crucified and that they were preaching that Jesus was resurrected. Any source would be acceptable, although I would prefer non-biblical sources to validate the bibles stories about the incident. Since the bible is quiet on the issue, we have no choice but to go to other sources.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Why is Clement 1 being rejected? Because it is Christian?</font>
Did you take the time to read “why” I rejected it? Perhaps it would be easier to communicate with you if you actually read what I had written. The document had nothing to do with the question I had asked.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Finally, how does one square the notion of the honest pursuit of history with the a priori rejection of sources, solely because they are Christian in origin?</font>
Again, lets try reading what I wrote. Shall we? I think it is reasonable to find independent verification of historic fact besides from a book with known flaws and written by authors who had a personal vested interests in what the book said. That’s not to say that everything in the bible is false, but I will wait for independent verification of certain things before I take it word for it.

You can taint my intentions if it makes you feel better. It doesn’t much matter to me. However, if you get down from your high horse long enough, perhaps you could answer my original question.
 
Old 04-17-2001, 05:39 PM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Originally posted by pug:
I’m simply trying to seek out information for a very specific topic. You didn’t provide me with that information. Certain claims are being made by Christians. I am simply seeing if they are justified in making those claims. SO far, I haven’t seen much evidence that they can legitimately make those claims.
Quote:
</font>

Pug,

I’m sorry I didn’t focus on your original question. I briefly mentioned it earlier, but I’ll state it more clearly here: I don’t believe there is sufficient historical evidence to claim 11 of the 12 disciples were “crucified”. Since I don’t believe the claim to be true I’m not going to defend it.

However, I do believe there is sufficient evidence for believing the four early Christian leaders I mentioned were martyred primarily for being Christians. I don’t think the “martyr argument” alone is sufficient to establish anything regarding the resurrection.

Now as far as giving evidence from non-Christian sources indicating the original twelve disciples preached the resurrection of Jesus, there is none. As I said before, when you make up the rules to the game you’ll always win.

BTW, did someone on this board make the claim that 11 of the 12 disciples were “crucified”?


Peace,

Polycarp
 
Old 04-18-2001, 11:32 AM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Now as far as giving evidence from non-Christian sources indicating the original twelve disciples preached the resurrection of Jesus, there is none. As I said before, when you make up the rules to the game you’ll always win.</font>
Again, if you wish to argue against assertions that I never made, I don’t see how we can continue to talk. Does it make you feel better if paint me as some one who you can easily dismiss?

I simply said…I’ll just quote myself so there won’t be any confusion.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I would prefer non-biblical sources that back up the case that the disciples were killed for their teachings.</font>
I later re-asserted that I would prefer non-NT sources. So, not only are you claiming that I won’t accept any Christian sources, which is an out and out lie, but also you are asserting that all Christian writings are in the New Testament? When did I say I wouldn’t consider the evidence in Clement because it was from a Christian source?
I simply said I would prefer objective sources. However, if none is available I will certainly look at other sources, even though they are known to have flaws in them. Furthermore, on this specific issue, the bible doesn’t say much at all.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> BTW, did someone on this board make the claim that 11 of the 12 disciples were “crucified”?</font>
No – not as far as I know. However, the local preacher made the claim at my church service on Easter Sunday. C.S. Lewis also makes similar claims and I’ve heard others make similar claims. In my experience, its often used to prove that there was in fact a resurrection.

Perhaps you can read my last paragraph as me claiming that C.S. Lewis is Satan and was sent to kill all non-Christians. That should be an easy position for you to attack me on.
 
Old 04-18-2001, 11:54 AM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by pug846:
Again, if you wish to argue against assertions that I never made, I don’t see how we can continue to talk. Does it make you feel better if paint me as some one who you can easily dismiss?
I simply said…I’ll just quote myself so there won’t be any confusion.
quote:

"I would prefer non-biblical sources that back up the case that the disciples were killed for their teachings."

I later re-asserted that I would prefer non-NT sources. So, not only are you claiming that I won’t accept any Christian sources, which is an out and out lie, but also you are asserting that all Christian writings are in the New Testament? When did I say I wouldn’t consider the evidence in Clement because it was from a Christian source?
Quote:
</font>
Listen, Einstein. I must warn you that I tested at an IQ score of 74 last year, so you should be aware that I’m a towering intellectual.

Having said that, I think YOU are the one who needs to read what you write. Look at your quote yourself, you said you “would prefer non-biblical sources”. I provided Clement which is NON-BIBLICAL. You then tried to say you “would prefer non-NT sources”. Again, Clement is not in the New Testament unless Christianity has altered the canon. If you accept Clement, then just come out and admit it. Otherwise, give a reason for why you reject it.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I simply said I would prefer objective sources. However, if none is available I will certainly look at other sources, even though they are known to have flaws in them. Furthermore, on this specific issue, the bible doesn’t say much at all.
Quote:
</font>
You obviously have not studied any ancient history. Please define what you mean by “objective source”. You can’t possibly believe a source is objective merely if it is non-Christians. If you’re equating “objective” with “non-Christian”, then you’re more biased than any writer of a New Testament book. There is no such thing as impartial objectivity in ANY ancient historian. If you know of one, then please list their name.

As I’ve repeated over and over… When you make up the rules, you’ll always win.

Peace,

Polycarp
 
Old 04-18-2001, 12:37 PM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Having said that, I think YOU are the one who needs to read what you write. Look at your quote yourself, you said you "would prefer non-biblical sources". I provided Clement which is NON-BIBLICAL. You then tried to say you "would prefer non-NT sources".</font>
And for the (what is it now?) third time - I never rejected Clement because it was Christian or because i felt it wasn't objective. I "rejected" it because IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY QUESTION. Let me repeat that again - I understand that Clement is not in the bible, i never stated otherwise, i simply ignored it as a source because it doesn't address my specific question. I would prefer non-biblical sources that deal with the issue - I assumed asking for sources that actually dealt with the issue was a given.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Please define what you mean by "objective source". You can't possibly believe a source is objective merely if it is non-Christians. If you're equating "objective" with "non-Christian", then you're more biased than any writer of a New Testament book. There is no such thing as impartial objectivity in ANY ancient historian. If you know of one, then please list their name.</font>
Point taken. I shouldn't have been so non-specific. However, would you not agree that if a non- Christian mentioned Jesus - like Josephus - it would carry more weight than if it was just find in the New Testament?

Example: The book of Mormon claims several historical facts. However, they obviously had much to gain by putting their spin on things. So, i would take it with a grain of salt. If a non- Mormon source mentioned the same exact thing, i could at least infer something like the event happened, or should we simply take the Book of Mormon's word for it? The same could be said about the Bible or any other religious book. I didn't mean to, although i did, imply that a non- Christian source would be "objective" in the sense that what they say is the, pardon the pun, the gospel truth. However, if Non-Christian sources were also confirming that 11 out of the 12 disciples were in fact killed for their beliefs, i would be much more likely to accept it as the truth.

I have yet to reject ANY source. I simply asked for what information was out there on the specific topic i wanted addressed. Since you haven't provided me with much to go on, i will assume you don't have the information i asked for. Since you also haven't made this argument, i wouldn't expect you to have it.

The bible as a whole makes several historic claims that never happened. It's not supposed to be a history or science book - it's a religious text. Yes, some historic evidents mentioned in the bible did in fact happened, although, events that it mentions where there is no other corrobarating evidence, i take it with a grain of salt.
 
Old 04-18-2001, 02:11 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by pug846:
Point taken. I shouldn't have been so non-specific. However, would you not agree that if a non- Christian mentioned Jesus - like Josephus - it would carry more weight than if it was just find in the New Testament?
Quote:
</font>
We're cool. I'm sorry I wasn't more specific in my very first post about the fact I don't believe there is good historical evidence to claim 11 of the 12 disciples were martyred. Misunderstandings on these boards are a pain to undo. Best of luck in your search !


Peace,

Polycarp

 
Old 04-18-2001, 04:01 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by pug846:

I am asking for a very simple thing: Evidence that would support the claim that 11 out of the 12 disciples were crucified and that they were preaching that Jesus was resurrected.</font>
There is no evidence that any of the disciples except Peter was crucified, and this is taught only as Church tradition. What is accepted is that he was certainly martyred along with St. Paul (c65AD).

1 Clement "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles--St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory".

A second source is offered in a letter from Bishop Dionysius of Corinth to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74):
"You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom"

Tertullian (c. 200AD) tells us in "Scorpiace" that Peter "suffered the passion of Christ" and was "bound to the cross."

Finally, the Roman Caius (198-217AD) wrote in his "Dialogue with Proclus":
"But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church".

The Early Fathers thought that Caius was talking about the burial place of the Apostles Paul and Peter. Modern scholars think it more likely he was referring to the place where they were excecuted.

You may also want to check out the Acts of St. Peter and Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul. I have been unable to locate them on the net, but they also refer to the martyrdom of both Apostles.

As for additional non-Biblical sources that Jesus rose from the dead, the only one that I can think of off the top of my head is the Gospel of Peter (2nd Century). Certainly Paul believed in the actual resurrection of the dead, and from the NT Canons we do not see any dispute from any source that any of the disciples or apostles did not believe in the resurrection.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Any source would be acceptable, although I would prefer non-biblical sources to validate the bibles stories about the incident. Since the bible is quiet on the issue, we have no choice but to go to other sources.</font>
The Bible tells us that James, the son of Zebedee was martyred, and Josephus tells us that James, the brother of Jesus was also stoned to death. As for other sources on the martyrdom of the Apostles, I think you would have to look primarily at apocryphal works from early Christians, each of varying degrees of reliability.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: Why is Clement 1 being rejected? Because it is Christian?

pug: Did you take the time to read “why” I rejected it? Perhaps it would be easier to communicate with you if you actually read what I had written. The document had nothing to do with the question I had asked.</font>
It is non-Biblical, and it tells us that Peter and Paul were martyred. In what way does it not have anything to do with what you are looking for?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: Finally, how does one square the notion of the honest pursuit of history with the a priori rejection of sources, solely because they are Christian in origin?

pug: Again, lets try reading what I wrote. Shall we? I think it is reasonable to find independent verification of historic fact besides from a book with known flaws and written by authors who had a personal vested interests in what the book said.</font>
Can you name a book that does not have a bias? Tacitus thought Christians were among the most vile people alive. Josephus had nothing but contempt for Christianity. So did Celsus. Since they obviously thought that the whole idea of the resurrection was crap, why would they talk about it?

On the other hand, we have, within the NT, we have over a dozen writers all telling us the same thing: that Jesus died and rose from the dead. Not all of these sources knew one another, nor used each others material. At the same time, they do present the same basic story on the question of the resurrection. To reject them out of hand, merely because they were believers is to poison the well, guaranteeing that you will not have to consider evidence simply because you do not like the source.

How is this good research or inquiry?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> That’s not to say that everything in the bible is false, but I will wait for independent verification of certain things before I take it word for it.</font>
But why not consider claims that are clearly independent of one another eventhough they are in the Bible? That is the question here.

Perhaps you could offer some evidence that the NT actually lied about something to support your claim that what they report is false. Do you have such evidence?

Nomad
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:53 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.