Skeptical

If your going to quote the NT, please try and use the quotes in context. From the New American Bible, Acts 1:13-14:

"When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James sone of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas sone of James. All of these devoted themseleves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers."

It seems clear from the context that this scene describes a simple event of coming together in one place to pray. I don't think this really says much WRT the question of how the apostles are portrayed in Acts as a whole.

For grins, I just re-read Acts, and I can't see how one can argue with the statement made by Steven Carr that "Acts loses the disciples with astonishing speed". The only disciples on the list from the above quote that are mentioned with any frequency at all are Peter, John and Barnabas. (and actually Barnabas was just a replacement for the "fallen" Judas)

The only indivuals martyred in Acts are Stephen, who was not one of the original twelve, and "James the brother of John". It is not at all clear that "James the brother of John" was given any chance to "recant" since, according to Acts, Herod was responsible for his death, and Herod was not known for mercy. Likewise, Stephen was stoned by an angry mob who would probably not have been much in a mood to wait for him to "recant".

None of the other original 11 are given any notice.

Acts quickly turns from the acts of the 12, to the acts of Peter and John, to the acts of Barnabas and Paul (Saul), to the acts of Paul, who it is granted by everyone never even knew Jesus. Clearly the majority of the 12 play no role whatsoever in Acts and the few who do are left behind quickly in favor of Paul.

Steven's point stands. Habermas saying "No early text reports that any of them ever recanted" is about as explanatory as saying "No early text reports that any of them were abducted by aliens". While it is factually correct, it is intentionally misleading and intellectually dishonest for someone who claims to be a NT scholar.

Someone7

I can't seem to find any relevant links about this Lubovitcher Messiah. Could you please post some, or tell us about it?

Vorkosigan

I spelled it wrong -- LubAvitcher.

Here are some good links, should be sufficient:

<a href="http://www.rickross.com/reference/lubavitch/lubavitch1.html" target="_blank">http://www.rickross.com/reference/lubavitch/lubavitch1.html</a>

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week529/cover.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week529/cover.html</a>


As you can see, it has taken very little time for a miracle and messiah tradition to have grown up around him. I just wonder when the "he's come back!" movement will begin. Mind you, this shit started when he was alive and had had a stroke! No matter what people think, reality soldiers on...

Vorkosigan

philechat

Vorkosigan,

Since you lived in Taiwan before, weren't there a lot of pretty crazy supernatural occurances?

Funnily they all think it's Buddha and his lot. Just recently the "Buddha finger" from China created almost a mass hysteria from its followers.

And just two months ago, several thousand Buddhists in Shan-Xi, China claimed that the sky turned water-lily-shaped, and Buddha was sitting on top of the cloud when they prayed to the Buddha finger. They also said that since it seldom rained in that area, the rain that day was a sign from Great Buddha himself. (The China Times actually reported such events as supernatural occurances)

Parallel here, isn't it?

And by the way, weren't hundreds and thousands of Falun Gong members willing to be killed by the communists because of their beliefs?

Ahh...all religious phenomona must be put into context of the world and not within the narrow Judeo-Christian sphere.

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>