Mythra

I wonder if God's fierce anger subsided after the stoning of Stephen, like it did after the stoning of Achan and his family.

Diogenes the Cynic

Are you tracking this debate at all? It's a requirement for Strobel's argument that the alleged martyr be a witness of the resurrection. He's arguing that they died for something they SAW, not something they merely believed on the word of others.
Yes,we know (though, inferring a specific death by crucifixion is a bit of a reach). You're trying to use the Gospels to support the Gospels again (and hey, it says Peter didn't want go. That doesn't sound like he was willing to me).

Elijah

How do you know Stephen wasn't a witness? I don't care about the resurrection right now it's not what I'm talking about, sorry. I understand what Strobel is saying but I don’t believe the resurrection (if it even happened) was what motivated his followers. I think it was Jesus doing something they had never seen before what they SAW was a man giving up his life willingly.

spin

Again Stephen according to the bible was not a disciple. He therefore doesn't answer the question asked of you.

He is only mentioned in the Acts and there is no way that I know of to validate any of the contents of Acts anyway.


spin

Diogenes the Cynic

Are you kidding me? Well, he wasn't apostle and he is never alleged to have been a witness in Acts (not that Acts should be taken as history anyway) but if you want to make a case that he was a witness, let's hear it. It seems like a strange thing for the author to leave out of the narrative.
Ok, but that IS the whole point of Strobel's argument.
Motivated them to do what?
One more time, this is an unsupported assumption.

Elijah

I have no case for Stephen being a witness I have no idea who the guy is, or what type of follower, but neither do you. For all I know he could have been the most beloved disciple in John or the dude who ran off naked or just someone who really liked the story the other apostles were telling after his death. The gospels don’t have a list of everyone who was a witness to what Christ did; there was a bunch of people. Whether eye witness account or recount of the story is what inspired Stephen is a moot point, it still came from Jesus’ self sacrifice.

The information that we have from that time is very limited, very sketch and heavily altered.

Don’t care, don’t agree.

Follow his example, do as he did unafraid of death.

What the willingness or the originality of the act?

Diogenes the Cynic

The information on Stephen comes entirely from Acts. It says he was one of the first deacons and that he got stoned for mouthing off to the Sanhedrin. That's about it.
It's not a question of agreement. Strobel's case is what it is. He explicitly claims that apostolic martyrdom is evidence for the resurrection. Do you dispute that's what he claims or do you think he claims something else?
All unsupported assumptions.
Either.

Jayrok

I was in a discussion recently at a christian board and the subject of Martyrdom came up. I asked for proof, or at least evidence of the Apostles being Martyred. He gave me the early christian tradition, which I'd already heard about.

So I asked for secular or other contemporary accounts as to counter balance (so to speak) the likelyhood of christian bias. I asked if there were any other sources other than the christian church on the subject and my post was met with laughing smilies and not much else.

He said "since when is christian literature not historical evidence?" I didn't claim it wasn't evidence, but I was inquiring about secular accounts.

So I guess you have to "take the church's word for it" when discussing the martyrdom of the Apostles. The other poster didn't see that it was equivelent to using the bible to prove the bible. "How do we know the apostles died for their faith?... that's easy, the church said so!"

Gregg

Well, if you did let Elijah quote scripture as evidence (which of course it really isn't), he could quote from John:

"So there will be one sheep, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, because I lay it down of my own accord."

This does seem to imply that Jesus chose to die, if not the manner of his death (although, as the Son aspect of an omniscient being, it would be hard to claim he didn't know exactly how he would die). But on the other hand, this damages Elijah's argument. Jesus lays down his life, knowing that he will take it up again. To say that others since Jesus have been emulating his example is thus not correct, because others have gone to their deaths not having genuine foreknowledge, but at the most only faith in life after death or a future resurrection.

Thus, the sacrifices of ordinary human beings before and after Jesus are more impressive than that of Jesus, since unlike them, according to the gospels, he was fully aware that he would be resurrected and then ascend into heaven. All he had to do was endure a few hours of pain and discomfort. Countless human beings have endured far more, and died only with the hope of living again, not with the absolute knowing that Jesus would have had.

But now let's go the opposite direction; suppose Jesus was simply a deluded person who believed himself to be the Messiah and believed his death would make atonement for sin. Well, not many people are going to go to their deaths thinking the same thing, that by their deaths they are going to save the world. They may think that at most they may save a few people's lives and perhaps do their tiny part to make the world a better place, or perhaps they think advancing an ideal is worth the sacrifice. Is this not more impressive than someone dying knowing that his death will save the world?

A further thought: Jesus says, "Greater love has no man than this, than he lay down his life for his friends." Yet, this is not what Jesus literally is doing, or what he believes himself to be doing. No one, as far as we know from the gospels, tries to get him to give up his confederates. No one calls for his close followers to be caught and executed as well. Jesus is actually using an imperfect analogy here. He is, or believes himself to be, dying so people no longer have to die. People have regarded Jesus' words as referring to his own action and I don't doubt that this has inspired countless people, BUT Jesus' words would have been meaningless at the time if people did not already have examples of people giving up their lives for their friends and regard it as a noble act. And as noted above in the case of the Spartans, examples existed in the ancient world of people giving up their lives not only for their friends but for strangers, even if those strangers were their countrymen.

driver8

I want to direct your attention to this post http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...6&postcount=22 I made earlier that was not responded to. In essence, it asks:

I put very little credence in the accuracy of the gospel sayings, but the whole point of the NT hinges on this very thing. The Christian movement is based on the opportunity to join the body of Christ, to be part of a community of man separate from one's village or tribe, to gain redemption and hence immortality through his sacrifice. The whole point of this godman is to come to earth to make this sacrifice. There are uncountable statements attributed to Christ in his ministry that he knows this, and that he knows how it will happen. This knowledge cannot be denied without striking at the heart of the story.

So, how does one reconcile what should be the most reliable quote of his whole life, i.e. his last words? How could his last words be misquoted? How does Jesus on the cross suddenly become both human and ignorant of his purpose on earth? Answer this before you wander off onto so-called copy-cat martyrs, because they are of no significance if the "original martyr" is a fraud.

Perhaps this convoluted ministry is true or this crucifixion is true but certainly they both cannot be. The gospel writers REALLY screwed this one up. As Ricky Riccardo would say, "Lucy, you got a lot of 'splaining to do."