slaveofChrist

They expected a political Messiah like the rest of the Jews, and when He died, they were obviously dissapointed. Then when He rose, they rememberd what He said. This just lends more evidence to the resurrection. They went to death for the Resurrection, not for the life of Jesus.

RED DAVE

From slaveofChrist:1. Of course we Jews expected a "political" Messiah. That was the only kind promised in "our" Bible.

2. The vast majority of Jews, then and now, weren't disappointed when Jesus died because they and we didn't believe he was the Messiah.

3. There is no evidence that Jesus "arose" in any contemporary work. Nor is there any evidence for widespread acceptance of this by Jews in the land where he allegedly arose.

4. Who went to death for the resurrectin of Jesus? There is no evidence that any of his immediate followers died for the resurrection. Indeed, except for Stephen, there is no evidence that any of them died anything but natureal deaths.

RED DAVE

slaveofChrist

Give me evidence for their natural deaths and disprove the "legends" that say they died as martyrs. The apostles that is.

I imagine that the Jews and Romans would have loved to disprove the disciples claims that He rose. But they didn't, so they probably couldn't.
-They could have simply produced his body
-All the other resurrection theories that I have heard have been simply ridiculous.
Also, there isn't much of any contemporary work of that day. Not a whole lot was preserved.

Would you like to name the Messainic prophecies Jesus failed to fulfill?

RED DAVE

From slaveofChrist:Since you're a newbie, let me explain the rules to you. In the absence of reliable historical evidence, historical claims, such as the undocumented martyrdom of the apostles, are out the window. The burden of proof, is on you.

1. The Roman and most Jews couldn't care less about the claims of Jesis' resurrection because it never happened, and people back then were not particularly concerned with the death, no matter how horrible, of one more preacher from the sticks of Galilee.
2. There never was a contemporary question about his body, so why would anyon have worried about it or bothered to produce it.
3. With regard to the resurrection, EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF. People who claim that the resurrection happened need to examine the quality of evidence they're accepting.
4. There's plenty of contemporary work of that day, e.g. Josephus, and none of it mentions Jesus (except for one passage that didn't appear in any edition of Josephus until hundreds of years after Jesus died.)

Well, you could start with the one about the Messiah being a descendant of David.

RED DAVE

Cross Examiner

RED DAVE,

Let's move through the list one-by-one.

Acts 12:1-3: "Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex (persecute - harass) certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)"

Now, this is just the testimony of Luke the physician (and oft-confirmed ancient historian/biographer par excellence, see comment below for just a tid bit) that James was martyred. Care to dispute that James was executed by Herod? (James was [chronologically] the first apostle martyred. We'll get to the other apostles in due time).

According to Greco�Roman historian A. N. Sherwin�White, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

Au contraire. Matthew�s response (Matt 27:62-66; 28:11-15) to the Jewish polemic that the disciple's stole the body while their guards slept presupposes both an interest in Christ's death, resurrection (rebutting '1' above), and the existence of a 'contemporary question about His body' (rebutting '2' above). I can explicate the logic behind this if need be.

About your 'extraordinary' argument, please see this. And the 'quality of evidence' for the resurrection is substantial. Start here, here, here, or here for starters. I'm more than willing to examine the evidence for the resurrection of Christ with you if you'd like.

Not so fast. That's quite a sweeping generalization. What about Thallus, the Talmudic references, Mara Bar-Serapion, Josephus, Tacitus, Phlegon, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian and Hadrian? Moreover, the Flavius Josephus references are believed by many reputable scholars to have been merely embellished in subsequent centuries, not created in subsequent centuries. And let�s not forget that the New Testament makes a compelling prima facie case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ that can stand on it's own merits. Remember, the New Testament is not the witness of one but many who were most proximate to the details they report on.

What about Christ's genealogies reported by Luke and Matthew?

You think this comment I made earlier is racist?:
"What we consider 'pain' might hardly be noticed by a sub-Saharan"
in the context of the preceding sentence:
"I'm amazed at what people in the West complain about since they've known only relative health and wealth. What we consider 'pain' might hardly be noticed by a sub-Saharan."
Let me rephrase this sentence above and expound upon it for your betterment:
Westerners don't know what pain really is. People in the third-world (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa) experience a great deal more discomfort than any of us Westerners typically do. Pain exposure, and pain tolerance, vary across the globe. Pain is not evenly distributed. Pain is a subjective experience. You can verify this empirically by simply observing commercials/video footage from the Christian Children's Fund. The point of all this was to lament the problem of pain posed by Jade (evidential PoP in narrative form), and to take issue with the idea that God could have somehow made pain less than it is without us, His creatures, still thinking it too much, since pain is a subjective experience. I didn't get to it, but I was going to bring up the purpose of pain as posited first by C.S. Lewis, but I've spent this post taking you to task for the 'racist' comment. Anyway, in light of this, did you, RED DAVE, want to maintain your claim that I am a racist? If so, let's hear your justification (this should be highly entertaining). If not, then you have shown that atheists have a modicum of reasonability at the least.

My apologies to the others who wrote to me besides RED DAVE. I am out of time again; I and my family are traveling North to be with loved ones, to eat, watch football and give thanks (i.e. Thanksgiving) to God for the simple blessings He bestows. I will try to address other posts in the future. Take care, God bless, have a great Thanksgiving.

Regards,
BGic

RED DAVE

From Billy Graham is cool: (actually, he's not)Considering the fact that Acts is the sole documentation for this martyrdom, this claim has to be viewed with exteme skepticism. Remember, Luke was not an eye-witness to these events and his description (that it was pleasing to the Jews (which Jews, by the way, all of us?) is xtian self-serving.

You are appealing to authority here. I don't know the works of Sherwin, but I do know that, for instance, Luke contradicts even Matthew on the question of JC's geneology, so we have to treat him as a source with extreme skepticism.

The contradictions between the various accounts of the disposal of JC's body, his alleged resurrection, etc., are so contrary that it is safe to assume that they are made up of various legends, circumstantial accounts, wishful thinking and and and out fabrication.

More later.

RED

RED DAVE

Moderator, this thread seems to be turning into a debate about Bible authenticity, etc. Request that it be split and transferred to Biblical Criticism.

RED DAVE

braces_for_impact

As requested, I am locking this thread and splitting off those posts that coincide with the topic of the Apostles' martyrdom in the name of Jesus. The new thread will be intitled 'The Martyrdom of the Apostles' and will be located in BC & H.

Thanks,

Ron

Iasion

Greetings all,

Hmmm...
You've never actually checked these references have you?


Thallus left no writings at all, and it is not even certain WHEN he wrote (the alleged cite in Eusebius is false.) All we have is a 9th century report of what 3rd century Julius Africanus said Thallus wrote - there is NO evidence that Thallus said ANYTHING about Jesus at all - he merely seems to be referring to an eclipse in 29AD.

This is not evidence of any kind.


The Talmud references to Jesus are no earlier than third century and are merely later Jewish responses to the Gospels.

This is not evidence of any kind.


Mara bar-Serapion's letter from c.200 mentions the Jews killing their "wise king" - not quite the right story.

With a VERY long bow, this is, at best, very late and weak evidence.


Tacitus wrote in early 2nd century - he does NOT name Jesus correctly, he titles Pilate wrongly, and he gives no sources.

This is evidence for Christians and their beliefs - NO evidence for Jesus.


Phlegon left no writings, and we know nothing about him - later Christians make different references to him apparently mentioning an eclipse. There is NO evidence that Phlegon made any mention of Jesus at all.

This is NO evidence for Jesus what-so-ever.


Suetonius wrote in early 2nd century and refers to a "Chrestus" (which is a valid Greek name meaning "good", and also a title for an initiate/hierophant of the mysteries) causing disturbance in Rome in the 60s - this can hardly be Jesus.

This is no evidence for Jesus at all.


Pliny wrote in early 2nd century and refers to Christians who worship a "Christ" - no mention of a historical Jesus at all, merely later Christian beliefs.

This is no evidence for Jesus at all.


Lucian satirised Christians in the late 2nd century - after the Gospels had been attacked as "fiction based on myth" (Celsus) - not once does he mention Jesus or Christ by name, but does ridicule the Christian founder in vague terms.

This is not evidence for Jesus - merely evidence for Christians in late 2nd century.


Hadrian ? Pardon? Where are you getting this stuff?

No evidenec there AFAIK.


Sure, just as there are reputable scholars who argue otherwise - and this is your best evidence? A passage that is TAMPERED with at best, and totally FORGED at worst?


Such is the alleged "evidence" for a historical Jesus - most of it is NO EVIDENCE what-so-ever, the rest is merely later responses to the Gospels, or suspect forgeries.


Only in the minds of faithful believers - this is not the view of historical scholars - are the Gospels found under "religion" or "history" in your university library?

Consider that not ONE SINGLE early Christian makes mention of the empty tomb until mid 2nd century when the Gospels first arise (and are attacked as "fiction based on myth".)

Even Christians are ignorant of a historical Jesus until a CENTURY or so after the alleged events - there is no evidence for Jesus in the VERY PLACE we would expect it - in early Christian writings.

How do YOU explain the silence about Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospel stories from even Christian writiers until a century later?


Many?
Arrant nonsense.

Paul wrote nearly 1/4 of the NT and was the first, most important Christian writer - yet he gives no historical details of a Jesus of Nazareth, merely some spiritual formulae about the Risen Christ. Paul doesn't even seem to know any miracles, events, or teachings of Jesus.

Peter's epistle gives no details of a historical Jesus even though this was allegedly wriiten by the "Rock" of the church.

Jame's epistle gives no details of a historical Jesus even though this was allegedly wriiten by the very brother of Jesus.

Jude's epistle gives no details of a historical Jesus, even though he was allegedly part of the early group.

John's epistles give no details of a historical Jesus even though this was allegedly wriiten by the beloved disciple.

Pseudo-Paul(s) (Hebrews, Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thess.) make no mention of any historical details.

(Clement gives no details of a historical Jesus even though he is "bishop of Rome" allegedly.)

Revelation gives no details of a historical Jesus (it even gives him breasts.)


The NT amounts to ONE original story about Jesus - G.Mark, later repeated by the other Gospels.

Yet Mark was not even an eye-witness, and Matthew and Luke copy from G.Mark showing they were not eye-witnesses either.

The Gospels only arise in early-mid 2nd century, originally as anonymous documents of unknown provenance, finally named in late 2nd century.

Your claim of "many" witness turns out to be ONE anonymous story of unknown provenance, which was totally unknown even to Christians until over a CENTURY after the alleged events.


This total silence of 1st century Christians is matched by the pagan records of the time - there are about 50 writers in the 1st century, NONE of them mention Jesus, even though it would be natural for some of them to have done so.
Check my list:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...lyWriters.html


In short, your claims are wishful thinking based on faith, but not on any real evidence.

Jesus was a Myth.

Iasion

Vorkosigan

Acts is a fiction stitched together from numerous sources. Take the passage cited above:

"Acts 12:1-3: "Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex (persecute - harass) certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)"

Since you believe that this is a historically valid account, can you explain why everyone else has a different account, and the only extant historical source, Josephus, says James was whacked in 62 by the High Priest and not Herod (who punished the High Priest for this act)?

Either Josephus is garbage, or Luke is. Pick one, and explain why, with sound historical methodology, you hold that position.

Vorkosigan