By by VorJack
One of the standard arguments we hear for the historicity of the resurrection is the martyrdom of the apostles. Would the followers of Jesus really have sacrificed themselves for a lie?
The argument has a number of weaknesses. One of the greatest is the fact that all the details of this martyrdom comes down to us through tradition, and we have no way of knowing when the traditions originated. They may be early or late, literary or historical.
Acts gives a few stories, like the stoning of Stephen (Act 8:54-60) or the death of James, brother of John (Acts 12:1-2), but nothing of the deaths of the major apostles. The first mention we get of the deaths of Paul and Peter come from First Clement, one of the first popular works of the community, dated between 90-140 CE. But the story is extremely vague, told to fit the theme of jealousy:
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance.
After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found notable pattern of patient endurance. (1 Clem 5:4-6, Lightfoot)
Pullquote: There may also be a kernel of history about the execution of the apostles — or there may not. We just don’t know.
Notice there are no details. As far as we can tell from this text the two chief apostles may have died of old age. And what sort of jealousy are we talking about here? The jealousy of the Jews is one traditional answer. The jealousy between their rival factions is another guess. But maybe it was a more prosaic kind of jealousy.
Consider the apocryphal Acts of Peter, dated to the last half of the second century. Look at what is has to say about the persecution of Peter:
And a certain woman which was exceeding beautiful, the wife of Albinus, Caesar’s friend, by name Xanthippe, came, she also, unto Peter, with the rest of the matrons, and withdrew herself, she also, from Albinus. He therefore being mad, and loving Xanthippe, and marvelling that she would not sleep even upon the same bed with him, raged like a wild beast and would have dispatched Peter; for he knew that he was the cause of her separating from his bed. [...]
And whereas there was great trouble in Rome, Albinus made known his state unto Agrippa, saying to him: Either do thou avenge me of Peter that hath withdrawn my wife, or I will avenge myself. And Agrippa said: I have suffered the same at his hand, for he hath withdrawn my concubines. And Albinus said unto him: Why then tarriest thou, Agrippa? let us find him and put him to death for a dealer in curious arts, that we may have our wives again, and avenge them also which are not able to put him to death, whose wives also he hath parted from them. (Acts of Peter, XXXIV, MR James)
Peter is executed for convincing women not to marry or have sex. The same theme is found in the apocryphal Acts of Andrew, with Andrew being executed for coming between a woman and her fiancee. The Acts of Paul has a similar story, with Paul being imprisoned for preaching that maidens shouldn’t marry. Paul isn’t executed until much later, when he mouths off to Emperor Nero.
Is this the sort of jealousy to which First Clement refers? The jealousy of a man spurned by his betrothed? I’d guess not. These three noncannocical works all date last half of the second century, and probably represent the arguments that were going on at the time. These stories may only tell us that there was a faction of the community that considered celibacy extremely important, and so they wove that theme into their traditions about the apostles.
There may also be a kernel of history about the execution of the apostles — or there may not. We just don’t know.
Related Post: Martyrdom Does Not Establish Truth
Entropist: These idiots are wrong on so many different levels, its hard to... 
Just a Guy: Me an my wife have negotiated infidelity. Meaning she can be with other guys as long as she doesn’t hide... 
Gwenny: Absolutely not! The world has plenty of people having kids. A child consumes HUGE amounts of resources, which from both a... 
Siberia: Or maybe they know they have neither patience nor inclination to deal with the fruit of their loins and thus, rather than be... 
DDM: Repubs and Dems. He’s saying they only take first impressions and... 
CM: Good point, most religions encourage having a lot of children. From an evolutionary standpoint you sort of owe it to your... 
Jasowah: “They don’t go beyond those emotions, and that’s the... 
82 Comments
This is interesting to me:
“And a certain woman which was exceeding beautiful, the wife of Albinus, Caesar’s friend, by name Xanthippe, came, she also, unto Peter, with the rest of the matrons, and withdrew herself, she also, from Albinus. He therefore being mad, and loving Xanthippe, and marvelling that she would not sleep even upon the same bed with him, raged like a wild beast and would have dispatched Peter; for he knew that he was the cause of her separating from his bed. [...]
And whereas there was great trouble in Rome, Albinus made known his state unto Agrippa, saying to him: Either do thou avenge me of Peter that hath withdrawn my wife, or I will avenge myself. And Agrippa said: I have suffered the same at his hand, for he hath withdrawn my concubines. And Albinus said unto him: Why then tarriest thou, Agrippa? let us find him and put him to death for a dealer in curious arts, that we may have our wives again, and avenge them also which are not able to put him to death, whose wives also he hath parted from them. (Acts of Peter, XXXIV, MR James)”
Now, my reading of that was that the wives and concubines were getting their jiggy-jiggy from Peter instead of their husbands/masters. Could it be that in Christianity, Peter set the mould for all the other crazy religious cult-leaders that followed him by claiming all the women as his personal playthings?
I have always contended that the actual histories of these guys after the crusifixion events have been embellished. The authors of the stories had an agenda, so they painted these guys in the best possible light to support their view of things.
Persecution is a long tradition with xtians, despite that most of it is made up. The whole xtians being fed to lions bit for instance. Makes for a great story about the cruelty of the Romans, but has no basis in actual fact as the motivation. The Romans didn’t care if you were xtian, pagan, or whatever, they picked people on their ability to provide entertainment to the crowd. If anything, I would say xtians would be a boring spectacle just kneeling there praying. ;)
Really interesting, I knew nothing about these considerations before. Thanks VorJack.
More ambiguity from the people who bring you christianity. Who would have thunked it!
Would the followers of Jesus really have sacrificed themselves for a lie?
I despise this argument with a red hot seething passion. It’s not only a stupid argument, it’s an insulting one. All throughout history people sacrificed themselves for lies. Just because they believed the lie was true that doesn’t mean that there actually WAS any truth to it.
Just a few off the top of my head – some of the Crusaders went off to war in the Middle East convinced that God wanted them to reconquer Jerusalem for Christendom. Some of Hitler’s followers died on the battlefield because they believed he venom about how Germans were the master race and entitled to run the world. And I’m sure that the Christians who use this argument are ready to declare that Joseph Smith and Mohammed were also true prophets because their followers also sacrificed themselves for what they believed.
It’s one of the dumbest arguments in the world for Christianity. It ranks right up there with “Pascal’s Wager” and “Lunatic, Liar or Lord” for me – three hotbutton arguments I hear from believers that make me wonder if they actually live in the same universe that I do or if they have somehow fallen accidentally into our world by some dimensional wormhole or something.
Re: “… some of the Crusaders went off to war in the Middle East convinced that God wanted them to reconquer Jerusalem for Christendom.”
This is, in many cases, very true. What’s even worse is that the so-called “People’s Crusade,” i.e. the followers of Peter the Hermit and Walter Sans Avoir, were not military people and were only poorly armed, if at all. They pretty much expected just to show up in front of the gates of Jerusalem, and that God — seeing their great piety and judging they’d endured a long and grueling-enough journey — would miraculously cast out “the Saracen” so they could go in and take the city.
Of course, the reality turned out to be very different, and this fatal discovery came long before they ever got anywhere near Jerusalem … in fact, the People’s Crusade met its doom in northwestern Anatolia not far across the Bosporus from Constantinople.
(The motives and expectations of the rest of the companies of the First Crusade are considerably different, and in fact, it’s a complicated matter. The expectations of all the later Crusades are even more involved than that.)
As others here have stated, the argumentum ad martyrium, despite its old age and revered status, is just not valid. Sincerity of belief, even to the point of suicidality, does not create veracity. The problem is that martyrdom is emotionally compelling, giving this argument a strong but false appeal. This is doubly the case in Christianity, whose founder martyred himself, which encourages Christians to revere martyrdom and sometimes even seek to be martyred. This trend goes back to Christianity’s roots and will likely never be rooted out.
You misunderstand the arguement. It’s not whether someone will die for a falsehood. It’
s whether someone will die for something they KNOW is a lie. So all of your examples do not fit this.
No, it’s whether a story-teller, three generations after the events, will claim that they’ve died for something which that story-teller claims is the ultimate truth. Anyway, even IF they did – LIKE THEY HAD A CHOICE!
Centurion: “So, you’re a Christian hey?”
John: “Er, yes.”
Centurion: “This Jesus, miraculous was he?”
John: “Nnnnoooooo, not really. Was a damned nice guy, though.”
Centurion: “I’m still killing your arse, wanker.”
John: “Bugger.”
All details of the apostles’ deaths aside, the basic argument just isn’t the least bit convincing. Many people have been willing to die for bad causes:
Would the followers of Jim Jones really have sacrificed themselves for a lie?
Would the followers of David Koresh really have sacrificed themselves for a lie?
Would the followers of Allah really have sacrificed themselves for a lie?
Would the followers of Velupillai Prabhakaran really have sacrificed themselves for a lie?
Would the followers of Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles really have sacrificed themselves for a lie?
And so on.
+1UP ^
I really hate this rhetoric that. As if just because someone became a martyr for some cause, it must have been a good cause.
Then we have to consider all religions with martyrs as real and true, of course.
Your friendly neighborhood OCD Spelling Nazi says: You misspelled “celibacy”.
Sorry. It’s my nature to copyedit.
Fixed.
Vorjack, this is the problem with “historical” Christianity, which Christianity is not. Christ is not a historical figure in that sense, but an eternal Spirit, the Spirit of Life itself. The experience of “the supply of the spirit of Christ Jesus” is not intended as a retrospective, historical pursuit or analysis but rather as a “living, abiding testimony” in the here and now. Like Lot’s wife, you’re looking back instead of looking in and so miss the point entirely my friend, respectfully speaking. So, like her you are left with an inanimate (dead) object…historical Christianity (ie religion) as opposed to a quickening, indwelling spirit, the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus.
Neither of us (believers or non-believers) can detail, satisfy the historical accuracy of such (physical) events, we simply weren’t in attendance. So then, what does it matter to you how Peter died, or to any of us for that matter? If that could be verified would you then believe in Christ…in you? I don’t think so.
The only verifiable witness/testimony is His life, His love, His transformative nature inwardly in the here and now. He “stands at the door and knocks”. The “word” of the Lord (not scripture) is a living word (JC declaring…my words are spirit and life) that continually testifies to His very Life (which He is) within that stems from His faithful, abiding presence and love for us.
Candidly, while entertaining (and endless) the attempt to disprove “God” or to invalidate scripture is a vain (pointless) endeavor. The more meaningful pursuit is an inward revelation, an unveiling from the depths of our (undiscovered) inner man. This Light (the Light Himself is within every man) carries with it a power, a joy, a wonder and a purpose far beyond our current borders and self-imposed limitations. The kingdom of heaven is within us.
May I respectfully encourage a transition in means and motives, a moving from a backwards glance to an inward investigation. There the journey commences, and what a grand and glorious journey it is indeed.
All the very best.
Hey, we can agree on one thing — that Christianity isn’t historical. :)
Yes, an historical Christianity is nothing more than…religion. And on that one point we both agree…its useless!
So you invented a new kind of christianity.. does it have flavor crystals, or come with 25% less water or something?
So John C, what is it that you worship and glorify? Is it not the mysterious Christ-in you?
Once you worship Christ, you’re a Christian, no? Or is your particular faith one of those interesting heresies where you pick and choose what fits?
Sorry–trick question. All faith is inherently a matter of picking and choosing what suits us.
Thanks Metro, a beautiful heresy indeed. Its more like this, I simply love Love…back, get it? This thing you call “Christianity” is actually Life itself. The problem is (in my humble estimation) that most of us have never really heard the true message of the gospel, we only think we have. I’m still “hearing it” more and more and have been journeying with Him now for a quarter century. The “Christian” life is one long waking up-to the truth. And this (the gospel message) is the One Thing we must hear (within us) if we are to truly experience Life-Himself.
We all know the popular story of Mary & Martha and JC having come to her “house”. Martha is busy with “many things” but Mary is (slacking off) just sitting at the feet of JC, worshipping, listening to His every word. To this Martha bitterly complains to JC saying (paraphrased) “tell her to help me, she’s doing nothing”. But JC says “Martha, Martha “you are worried and upset about many things, but only One Thing is needed (is necessary), Mary has chosen the good part, (worshipping, listening) and it will not be taken away from her.” He is the One Thing.
I have merely learned (by His grace) the “One Thing” that is needed. This is half the battle, knowing Who, what, where to focus our energies on, to listen to. For “only He has the words of life” as Peter said, all the best Met.
“Vorjack, this is the problem with “historical” Christianity, which Christianity is not. Christ is not a historical figure in that sense, but an eternal Spirit, the Spirit of Life itself.”
We’re in agreement that he never actually existed then. Cool. But if Christ isn’t an historical figure, then why do Christians demand he was a real man? I mean, on the one hand you say he wasn’t a real person, then on the other you talk about his life on earth. It looks like you’re just rationalizing in order to create your own interpretation of biblical scripture to suit your own vision as to what Jesus was, and what his purpose was.
Maybe that’s why there are 34,000 different denominations of Christianity worldwide. You seem awfully sure of yourself, which seems odd since the other 1.8 Billion Christians all have their own interpretations, which do not mirror your own.
Lowrack-I’m not implying He was never “in the flesh”, not at all. But with Him, as with us, the flesh is not our true, lasting essense, not our eternal Selves. What is behind the veil (of the flesh?). If we judge by our physical eyes alone (which Christ warned against) then we will (wrongly) deduce this (outer shell) is all there is because that’s all the (physical) eyes “see”.
No, my views are not widely held nor appreciated by the majority, that’s ok. I dont care to be popular or respected by the religious rule keepers, I simply want to know the Truth-Himself. My “confidance” as you put it derives from experience, not an argument. Arguing is pointless. My position is that we can know the truth, and its that same truth that “sets us free”.
JC “derives from experience” is key here. We don’t have your “experience” nor will we ever. You know the truth – for you – we are left to suffer eternal torment.
there may or may not be a God, but why risk it
and why do athiest want other people to become athiest?
athiests become serial killers at schools and make life meaningless
if you dont believe in God, why are you still here?
LOL! Well with that logic, I’ll just go kill myself now.
BTW, serial killers become serial killers. It involves different brain chemistry, not different beliefs.
Atheists become serial killers at schools.
Man, your head’s right up your collective. School shootings are mass murders. Serial killings are something quite different. I suggest you ditch the 700 Club for a re-run or two of CSI (Not the NY or Miami ones–those are non-canonical and referred to only by heretics).
The faith-based shoot doctors and blow up buildings. Oh–and fly aircraft into them.
Better to watch Dexter for a good idea of what a serial killer is.
What? No, Dexter is the serial killer we all love and adore. Real serial killers are…
wait! You’re right! One of the characteristics of many serial killers is their charm. See Ted Bundy, for example. However, the BTK killer was totally repugnant. And a deacon at his church, so yeah, there’s that.
if you dont believe in God, why are you still here?
How should I interpret that? Since I do not believe in God, why hasn’t He struck me dead with a lightning bolt?
Muhammad may or may not be God’s prophet. Why are you risking it?
Joseph Smith may or may not be God’s prophet. Why are you risking it?
I may or may not be God’s prophet. Why are you risking it?
I shall slay your high priest and take his mojo…
Austin Powers may be God’s prophet! Why are you …
No, no … wait … that can’t be right.
I may or may not be your God’s God. Why are you risking it?
“if you dont believe in God, why are you still here?”
If you DO believe in God, why are YOU still here? Shouldn’t you be martyring yourself to kill evil atheists so you can get to heaven faster? I’m sure God would be pleased that you “plucked out the evil eye” of atheism and were willing to sacrifice your own life for his glory. You’re not much of a believer if you can’t even stand up for your own convictions.
Before you martyr yourself, do God a favor, would you? Stone some children to death for back-talking their parents, stone some adulterers (you can enlist a few slaves to help gather the stones), sacrifice your own children to prove you love God and find a few goats to sacrifice at an altar. That way, you’ll have thoroughly proven your belief is strong before you “go to meet your maker”.
Ack. Don’t give it ideas.
Haha, I’m sorry. I just get irritated with nutjobs who talk about belief as though it’s something they actually have. An overwhelming majority of christians don’t believe the bulk of their own holy book, yet they roll around bumping their gums about belief, never realizing what hypocrites they are. Thankfully, when push comes to shove, they take no action because they can’t reconcile the stupidity of their religion with their own values and common sense. Now if we can just get them to take the next step…
Your words deserve only ridicule. Get an education.
I don’t want anyone to become an atheist – I just want them to THINK. Of course, the ones that actually DO think become atheists….
“Would the followers of Jesus really have sacrificed themselves for a lie?”
Haven’t people died for “lies” throughout history? Just watch one 24-hour cycle of news & we can see it still happens today.
Would 19 young men have flown themselves into buildings for a lie?:
Both the Apostles, and Jesus, are fabrications.
This answers all queries neatly and completely.
Next question?
________________________
P.S.:
Would those who might wish to counter my assertions at least come armed with even one or two tiny facts? OK: Just ONE extant contemporary FACT.
To call the previous contestants “pathetic” would be indulging in fanciful overstatement.
“Both the Apostles, and Jesus, are fabrications.
This answers all queries neatly and completely.”
It doesn’t particularly answer anything and certainly not completely. If for example someone said:
“Both the Big Bang and evolution are fabrications.
This answers all queries neatly and completely.”
What you expect someone to challenge that as a statement or just accept it?
1) It DOES answer the question exactly.
I have zero idea as to why you curiously suggest that it ‘doesn’t particularly answer anything’.
Your non-sequitur does nothing to elucidate, only to confuse matters.
The ‘big bang’ as well as, (and in particular, and especially), evolution, have a vast mountain of EXTANT CONTEMPORARY evidence in favour of them**, and as such, are NOTHING LIKE the totally and completely absent extant contemporary evidence for an historical Jesus.
I fear that you have ’shot yourself in the foot’ with this somewhat feeble reply.
Again, neither my opinions, nor expectations have no bearing on reality.
In your response, you also neglected to include one extant contemporary fact.
Marks out of 10?
0.5 for spelling.
_______________
** If I have to outline what this evidence is, then I need not bother.
Which is not what you said at all …
I’ll repeat …
““Both the Apostles, and Jesus, are fabrications.
This answers all queries neatly and completely.”
Which does not answer all queries either neatly or completely. It’s just a statement as is claimg that evolution is a fabrication.
“Marks out of 10?
0.5 for spelling.”
Yes very good … have you got anything else oh so witty to add — the long winter nights must just fly past with you for company?
p.s. I would suggest you don’t bother outlining anything, especially in capitals, as you seem to be hell bent on proving how right you are without every saying why you are right. Honestly, you have a lot in common with some of the fundies who appear here.
In your response, you also neglected to include one extant contemporary fact
No offense, Michael, but what’s the point?
I’m sure that you can take any piece of evidence and come up with an alternative explanation for it. You can do that for any piece of historical evidence, and it gets even easier when dealing with ancient history where we have so little evidence to work with.
So I’m sure you’re able to dismiss anything anyone else brings up. Any decent conspiracy theorist can do the same.
The point is that there is no, zero, zilch, nada extant extra-biblical evidence for any of the so-called aposostles WHATSOEVER!!
Whereas there is a plethora of evidence to the contrary.
Come upp with a single scrap of evidence, and we can discuss it.
Until then, it remains a very badly executed fraud.
Don’t bother to reply if you do not have said evidence.
LOL! You are exactly like the the jaded individual who set up a web site offering a reward of $250,000 to anyone who can put forth any ‘evidence’ to ‘prove’ evolution is a fact. Obviously you, personally, hold the ‘evidence’ of evolution in a different scale than that of Jesus and the Apostles, even though there is a ‘plethora’ of websites, pro, con, and fence-sitter, discussing the issue.
The difference being that evolution IS proven fact, whereas Jesus is a piss-poor hypothesis with no actual evidence. The standards of evidence required for both cases are the same – your excuse that they’re not is a typical Christian excuse.
If you can provide actual evidence for Jesus – DO IT! Show us! Don’t just post links to bullshit sites which post opinion and pretend it’s proof, tell us what the evidence is and give us citations from solid sources (that does NOT include scripture or appeals to authority, by the way).
In exchange, I will post you some of the MOUNTAINS of evidence which prove evolution.
In your own time.
Jer:
Your reasoning is a little faulty. The Apostles died for that which they witnessed for themselves. They created that faith based upon what they saw and recorded, thus Christians base their truth on that which is recorded. It has been attempted through the ages to prove that record a lie, but unfortunately, for some, it has yet to happen.
What a little like-minded group on the web believes is irrelevant. It is an individual faith and if another finds it necessary to edify themselves by an arrogant criticism of that faith, they obviously are sadly lacking in life to begin with. I respect your choices in life, do you respect others the same?
.
As to going on a ‘crusade’, etc, because of a belief that ‘God willed it’, I agree that that is lunacy.
The question, “Would the followers of Jesus really have sacrificed themselves for a lie?” is structured poorly for apologetic purposes.
For apologetic purposes, the question is better stated, “Would the Apostles of Jesus have martyred themselves for what they KNEW to be a lie?” OR “Would the Apostles have martyred themselves if they knew that Jesus did not rise from the dead?”
This distinction in the question separates the Apostles from the other examples given above, i.e. David Koresh followers, Nazis, Islamic terrorists….
My $.02
How does it seperate Jesus’ apostles from Koresh’s Branch Davidians? It’s not about what they knew it’s about what they believed. Both examples are equal in that regard.
The difference is that the Apostles were in the unique position of seeing the risen Christ which to them was an “in the flesh” comfirmation of what they believed, but if Christ did not rise from the dead, then the Apostles would have known that he did not rise from the dead and therefore that what they had believed was false.
Koresh’s followers may have believed he was a messiah figure before the fire, but I’m pretty sure that those who survived haven’t martyred themselves since the fire because Koresh did not rise from the ashes and was proven to be a false messiah.
Does this help explain the distinction?
But that’s a bullshit argument; they didn’t need to see him rise from the dead in order to believe he was the messiah. in fact there’s absolutely no evidence that they saw any such thing – the versions of the ressurection in the gospels are all completely different, even! If you saw a thing like that, every detail would be burned into your mind – trust me, I can recall every tiny little detail of the first time I saw a man die. If he’d come back to life, it’d be in 1080p hi-def!
but if Christ did not rise from the dead, then the Apostles would have known that he did not rise from the dead and therefore that what they had believed was false.
Not exactly true. Remember, this is the ancient world, where it is assumed that Gods existed and that they communicate through visions, dream, divination and prophets.
If some of the apostles had a hallucination in which they saw Jesus on earth, then that could be seen as a vision sent by God that Jesus had risen. If they’d had a dream where Jesus spoke to them, they might well have accepted that as the proof that Jesus had risen and was still in communication with his followers. If one of the apostles suddenly began to speak with great fire and conviction, then the others might conclude that Jesus had risen and was “pouring out” the holy spirit upon his followers. (Acts 2:32-33)
And so on. Remember, we’re far more skeptical today. If Jesus did not rise, it would still be quite possible for his followers to believe that he did rise. In fact, as the work When Prophecy Fails makes clear, it’s might be easier to believe that Jesus had been resurrected than to accept that you’d just wasted however many years of your life following him.
And that is not necessarily true either. Jesus spent his entire ministry expressing whom He was and whom He had been sent by. The ‘ancients’ he was ministering to were already monotheists.
One has to come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings–or it is the most remarkable fact of history.
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.
A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to “prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb’s entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.
Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ’s post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ’s appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. While Paul did not see Christ after the resurrection, he spoke to people who had. The apostle appealed to his audience’s knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: “What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, ‘If you do not believe me, you can ask them.’ Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago.” Of course one can simply
Your attempted explanation claims that the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection were either illusions or hallucinations. Unsupported by the psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations, this theory also does not coincide with the historical situation. Again, where was the actual body, and why wasn’t it produced?
Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn’t die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood.
My friend, you don’t bring up anything new. It’s all been argued ad infinitum already.
and…..”it’s might be easier to believe that Jesus had been resurrected than to accept that you’d just wasted however many years of your life following him.” Really????
Then of course there’s that little problem of the gospels not being first hand accounts and not being written by the people they are attributed to. This is not really what the apostles knew. It’s a translation of what some unknown persons said the apostles knew. Faith in what the gospels say is really faith in these anonymous sources.
Earliest Christian tradition claims that the New Testament writers of the story of Jesus were men who lived at the time of Jesus. Matthew and John were of the “twelve” – disciples of Jesus who were chosen by Jesus to be apostles.
Some modern scholars refer to a mysterious source document called “Q”, which is supposed to have been the source of much of the material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. But “Q” is nothing but an academic hypothesis. We don’t have any manuscripts with “Q” – for all we know it is merely the invention of certain skeptical academics.
There are no serious competitors for the authorship of the gospels. If someone was writing a false account of the life of Jesus, they would be unlikely to claim that they were written by Mark or Luke, because they were not even of the twelve. Very little is said of Matthew in any of the gospels. When people in the second and third centuries later did write fanciful accounts of the life of Jesus they chose the names of much more prominent figures for pretended authorship – Peter, Mary and James. Those apocryphal gospels just don’t have the same ring of truth that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have. You have to remember that the four gospels were not even found at the time those others were written.
We have the witness of Papias and Irenaeus – second century writers – that these gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These gospels are obviously based on eye-witness material. They report the same event sometimes from slightly different angles. At times one writer includes details that another writer leaves out. This is consistent with what we would expect from eyewitness sources.
It is not my concern to convince you. There is ample evidence of reliability. You do not appear to place the same reliability upon bible manuscripts as you do other ancient documents. That is not my concern either. The fact is that I have looked at the pros and cons put forward and personally I am convinced of their authenticity.
Granted Luke was probably written by Luke who was not of the original 12. The rest however were merely the publishing of oral traditions by unknown individuals. They were ascribed to Matthew, Mark and the original apostle John by the church fathers.
The ‘ancients’ he was ministering to were already monotheists.
Agreed, and I didn’t mean to imply that they weren’t. Still, they were used to a much more active God, and the ancient Jews had their own visions, portents and methods of divination. The point still stands: had a first century Jew experience a dream where a dead person spoke to him, it would have been accepted as a divine message.
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.
If you’re talking about “Higher Criticism”, much of it is still considered valid. Much of it isn’t, of course, but that’s scholarship for you. But groups like The Jesus Seminar still rely on techniques that originated with Rudolf Bultmann, the German theologian. And of course, Bultmann was a devout Christian who did not see himself as “attacking” the bible.
A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb …
And yet Mark, the earliest gospel, doesn’t mention them.
St. Paul says in effect, ‘If you do not believe me, you can ask them.
If so, it would have been helpful if he’d named them.
Why mention Peter/Cephas separate from the twelve? Why then to ‘James, then to all the apostles’? Weren’t they the twelve? Wasn’t James an apostle? Wasn’t Peter? Why separate them all from the anonymous 500?
But no. As JD Crossan points out, that whole section is a creedal formulation. As Paul makes clear, having seen the risen Christ was a badge of authority in the church. Paul ties his vision of Jesus to his status as an apostle. This list is a statement of the various powers in the church who claimed the status as apostles. It is not a statement of history.
Again, where was the actual body, and why wasn’t it produced?
Well, Crossan suggests that the body would have been tossed in a lime pit like most executed criminals. There it would have very quickly decayed. Still, I’m not sure I buy that. There’s no real reason to doubt the basic structure of Mark’s burial scene, since it fits better with what we know of Jewish custom than Crossan’s lime pit.
I think the real question is when did the tradition of the empty tomb start? It doesn’t appear in the accepted Pauline letters. Given his explanation of the nature of resurrection in 1st Corinthians, it doesn’t really look like he’d expect Jesus’ body to disappear: this “tent” would remain on earth while Jesus received a Mansion in heaven.
I think it’s most likely that the empty tomb tradition didn’t begin until after Paul’s letters, by which point the body would have naturally decayed.
Really????
*shrug* Read the book. It’s a classic.
Well, alright, think of it this way: you’ve just spent the past three years following a guy who was claiming that the world would end in his lifetime. Suddenly, he drops dead. You’ve got two choices:
1. Admit you were wrong and go home, where everyone is going to be smirking at you and cracking jokes, “Did the world end and I miss it?” Admit that you’d sold all your stuff and wasted three years following a crackpot. Feel like a total fool.
2. Find some way to interpret things so that you weren’t wrong. Maybe the world will end in your lifetime. Maybe he’d just gotten the date wrong. Maybe it was all still going to happen, just in a different way.
Which sounds easier? Which leaves your self-respect intact? Which involves less cognitive dissonance? There have been countless people throughout history that have chosen the second option.
Will give you the courtesy of a response asap, but need to look into Crossman, et al, possibly tomorrow, though it’s New Year’s eve.
“A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to “prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb’s entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.”
You accept that as fact on the basis of no evidence whatever. It’s not difficult to back up a story by inventing that kind of detail.
“Earliest Christian tradition claims that the New Testament writers of the story of Jesus were men who lived at the time of Jesus.”
That’s just flat out untrue. The earliest gospel is widely accepted y scholars to have been written around 70AD, which given life expectancy at the time would be between two and four generations after the “time of Jesus” (assuming he even existed). The next gospel was almost a complete plagiarism of the first with some details changed by the writer to a version he liked better.
“Those apocryphal gospels just don’t have the same ring of truth that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have. “
The four gospels don’t have the ring of truth because there is nothing in their supernatural claims which has even the tinniest shred of evidence to support it – and in real life, there certainly would be evidence and other contempory accounts if they were true. But there aren’t. Because it’s all bullshit.
If that is the case why are you here in the first place?
As stated previously, there is nothing new under the sun with regards to this argument.You prefer to view the issue strictly as you prefer, nothing more. I suspect your view is not necessarily whether it is true of false, but simply how you exhibit your world-view.
LOL!
Again: “speak for yourself but don’t presume to speak for me”
HYPOCRITE!!!!!!
Also, this is an ATHEIST forum. If you want apologetics and excuses for your fairy tales, look on a Christian board – you won’t find them here.
@Custador
You remember your ying and yang post … well here’s a bit of yang. Esraelon is just another twat who … nope I’m bored now so I’ll just say he’s a twat.
Custador:
Oh, it’s ALL about what they knew. They were there with Christ the entire time. Of course, Paul was not there, but I don’t think he is the reference.
On the other hand, if you do not believe one way or the other, it’s a moot point. Better to just go with Jabster.
So says somebody who believes something strongly and confuses strong belief with certain knowledge. A common problem among Christians.
It’s FAITH. I have it, you don’t. It is based upon faith that the apostles saw what they said they saw and what they died for claiming they saw. Simple faith, it it turns out not to be true, which parties did I miss the most?
What you think is not my concern, however, you also share that ‘common problem among Christians’, and you also appear to confuse ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’ as asserting that belief IS knowledge. Well….I cannot speak for all Christians, but ‘knowledge’ is assuredly not ‘faith’, for if there were knowledge there would be no need of faith.
No, it’s GULLIBILITY – you have it, I don’t.
Then speak for yourself but don’t presume to speak for me.
“It’s FAITH. I have it, you don’t.”
So you’re a religious hypocrite too? Quel suprise.
LOL! There is no rejoinder for baseless rejoinders, so my apologies, you’ve had the last word here.
“It’s FAITH. I have it, you don’t.”
Followed by:
“speak for yourself but don’t presume to speak for me”
That’s what is known as a religious person being a hypocrite. Baseless? Ummmm, no.
…for if there were knowledge there would be no need of faith.
I love this quote. If Christians agree with this point, why do they stop looking for the knowledge? There is knowledge, and it’s called evolution. Therefore all should agree that faith is no longer needed.
Listen, pardner, every response you have made here implies the comment I made. Obviously I was wrong and you do have faith in Something, so my apologies.
Lol – Troll FAIL!
Ah…an atheist forum…..I came on without any assumptions and simply expressed my own views, as you are doing, but thanks for the heads-up. Your written reactions speak louder than words, so I will say good day to you.
Coming from a present day apostle…
If I were asked to deny Christ and live or keep believing and die, I would choose to die.
That time is coming, I am prepared. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
Happy New Year everyone.
nomad: You are correct, to a point. Oral tradition is simply the way it was handed down in a generation rife with persecution and being fed to the lions. Not many would have put anything in writing that was positive with regards to Jesus Christ arising from the dead considering being a Christian in those times was basically akin to being an outlaw.
Of course, one would have to agree to the possibility that the other gospels were not written by those they were ascribed to, just as it is obvious that faith is something you have which you are not certain is true. Practically everything is looked at as ‘relative’ today when back in those times ‘relative’ was an unknown term.
So , yes, I can agree with the fact that the church ascribed the authors to those gospels but a little more in-depth look certainly gives a reasonable premise for doing so. Is that premise beyond doubt, of course not.
Oh do piss off you boring little twat …
“Is that premise REMOTELY CREDIBLE, of course not.”
Fixed that for you.
My apologies to all. Thank you, Vorjack, nomad, thank you. I will take my leave and all can go back to discussing their infallible knowledge among themselves.
Apologies accepted … please don’t hurry back.