Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

Seriously? The two statements about going to Galilee and then staying in Jerusalem are over a month apart! There's 40 days between the Resurrection and Ascension! Plenty of time for some stuff to happen in Galilee and then the disciples go back to Jerusalem.

Please read this entire passage from Luke and explain to me exactly when during this passage Jesus and the disciples went/were in Galilee:


Luke 24

The Resurrection of Jesus

24 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in, they did not find the body.[a] 4 While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. 5 The women[b] were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men[c] said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.[d] 6 Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.” 8 Then they remembered his words, 9 and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened.[e]

The Walk to Emmaus

13 Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[f] from Jerusalem, 14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, 16 but their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?” They stood still, looking sad.[g] 18 Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?” 19 He asked them, “What things?” They replied, “The things about Jesus of Nazareth,[h] who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.[i] Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place. 22 Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, 23 and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him.” 25 Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! 26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah[j] should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us[k] while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?” 33 That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. 34 They were saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Jesus Appears to His Disciples

36 While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”[l] 37 They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.[m] 41 While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate in their presence.

44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46 and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah[n] is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses[o] of these things. 49 And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

The Ascension of Jesus

50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.[p] 52 And they worshiped him, and[q] returned to Jerusalem with great joy; 53 and they were continually in the temple blessing God.[r]

[William]

sorry for the length. I tried not to miss anything but If i did and you want it addressed, just point it out.

We have no evidence of anyone thinking in an individualistic mindset. If they had existed back then, then they would have been viewed as deviants just as much in their culture. This is the way these people think. We see it in similar cultures today.

I have spent some time in the middle east. Several different countries there. I am sure it's not exactly the same, but no matter where you go, you will find "individualistic" mindsets. Even the bible confirms this. Harlotry was shameful, yet we have plenty of whores and Johns in the Bible, no? and that's not all, is it? Why were there whores and whoremongers in that time if it were shameful, and if no one went against such an honor/shame culture?

You're asserting that the people were robots unable to deviate from societal programming. It's not true now nor was it true then.

Already done in the debate. Still waiting for a response.

I just dont find the assertions of an empty tomb or the belief of some that Jesus raised from the dead convicting. That's not proof - it's hardly evidence at all.

Oh I always prefer that, but that means you respond to the evidence that is given.

is there something you have in mind?

No it isn't. I'm quite convinced most of us in this thread who are Christians have read more of the non-Christian writers. I have in fact written several responses to books that I have read on the topic. I don't ignore it. If I find an area of disagreement, I speak about what I think this person is wrong in that area. That's not dismissing.

We could argue over whether you address it all or adequately, but I think that would be a bit tangential.

And I could just as well say when you hold that everything must be a "natural" explanation, then you can give any possible natural scenario you want to avoid dealing with the data no matter how absurd it is. I'm only interested in the historical data we have and what explanation explains it best.

perhaps. But we have all seen natural events. There is no dispute that they occur. There is also examples of what people once thought were direct actions by God and divine, but have since been shown to be very natural. So looking to see if there is a natural explanation before accepting a supernatural explanation seems more in line with reality. Granted, this is an opinion.

Um. No. All that follows is that something unusual happened but there's nothing specific tied to the event. For the resurrection of Jesus, the claims of Jesus were directly tied to the event as well as the Old Testament promises of a coming Messiah. It was more than just a miraculous event. That's why N.T. Wright rightfully says that if it had been a thief next to Jesus who had resurrected the Jews would have thought "YHWH is doing some strange things." They would not have said he was the Messiah.

This isnt really correct. If a "miracle" happened without context then you'd be right, but that's not the case here. The context is Hindu Idol gods. Those are specifically tied to the miraculous milk drinking.

So what? I find the arguments for God and the reality of miracles much more convincing.

LOL, right. so what. I made the comment in reply to you saying the same thing. anyone can say that, so it's moot.

Sure. THe data. For instance, have you gone through Keener's Miracles?

I have not yet.

I did not suggest that they would not make mistakes. Inerrancy has never been a foundation for my position. I also question what you mean by a "perfect" way.

by perfect, I mean without error. I dont think it's unreasonable to presume a perfect God could have a perfect book written, especially if he can raise men from the dead and create the universe.

We are. One of us is going by what we would like to have had done. One of us is going by what we have.

I am not sure I see it that way.

Even if that's the case, we do it the same way. We look at the data that we have. Some events are better attested than others. This is also the case in secular history as well. It's not as if if there's a contradiction in the Bible then that means that everything is a grab bag. That's a very fundamentalist way of thinking.

and it's not what I said or what i think. I have said and I do think that there's truth and accuracy in the bible. Most historians even look at BIG claims, not supernatural, but even just grandiose natural claims and tend to be skeptical based on several factors, yes? So again, I see huge supernatural claims that cannot be confirmed. I dont believe supernatural claims from any other source, so why should I from the bible? But even if i did, I see that there are errors and problems with things that I can verify, so it already makes me doubly skeptical of the HUGE claims that are impossible to verify.

I dont feel like this is hard. If anything about this is fundamentalist, it's just that it's fundamentally obvious.

I made no such agreement. As for an all-powerful God, why should I think an all-powerful God would have to cater to my wants and desires?

well now I am curious, what do you say about the sandals in the limited commission? Were they to be worn or not to be worn?

and wants and desires? Not really an accurate way to describe this is it? I am not asking to be 6'-5" or have lots of money or to live till 100 or longer. The bible says that God wants us all to be saved, and then says one of the prerequisites for salvation if to believe. I dont believe it. I look. I read and I still look. I still dont believe. what i am asking for is that something believable to me be provided so that I may believe it.

it's like asking me to sit in chair in an empty room... How do I sit in a chair that's not there? "well, kinda araogant aint it that you refuse to sit in that chair?" I just dont see one.

which brings back to another point that should be obvious - I am not questioning God. I am questioning the men who claim to speak for him. I dont know these men. They wrote some books and letters. So are they telling the truth? Are they mistaken? Are they accurate?

some of it is true? Well geez. How could you know? Could it be you'd use the historical method?

that's one approach.

You know, the exact same way I am right now?

right about what?

Once again, it's you and Gary that are making an issue out of Inerrancy.

I know. Maybe it's because i grew up that way. but it also makes sense to me. I just cant seem to buy that a perfect God, who loves us all and wants us all to be saved, who can move the sun backward and create the universe, would commission a book of divine truths but ensure it was well edited. men write books all the time. some of them are error free.

The rest of us don't really care at the moment.

Now you said the following:



I replied with



You answered

Now this really isn't an honest look at the question in my opinion. The Bible nowhere says "Just believe." It always gives reasons why. You can think those reasons are poor, but they are reasons. No one is asking you to ignore history. We're suggesting to read the scholars on both sides of the issue.

so do you have to read the bible AND the right scholars before God's Word works? One or the other wont do?

and nor is it hoinest to suggest that was my point or what I said. With History, you take or leave it – no eternal consequence. You can even be skeptical on parts while believe in others. The bible wont allow that. You have to believe in Jesus. That he was God. That he died and came back to life. That he flew away and come back one day. That he born of a virgin.

You can live extremely morally and selflessly, but if you do not believe in Jesus, then you’re damned.

Do you not think the bible teaches this?

And modern language presents a barbaric view of sporting events. How many times do I hear from sports fans about how one team massacred another or slaughtered another or murdered another? You would think the police would arrest some of these people....

Oh wait. Could it be that the language is highly symbolic language that is common in the era? Yeah. That could be it, just like our language does the same.

Once again, it's non-Christians that have a hang-up with literalism.

you;re saying that hell isnt really a bad place? There may not be literal fire, but you dont think it's bad or "painful?" I mean, jesus' story of Lazarus and the Rich man still seems pretty unpleasant.

I guess people use the term "crucify" figuratively today too.

Okay. So you want to say people who learn the original languages and study the culture of the time and earn Ph.D.'s and pass peer-review on these topics that they dedicate their life to don't know any better than the rest of us?

That's either massive ignorance or arrogance.

We do know where he got the 500. He received it from the oral tradition. The creed isn't original with Paul. He's passing along something that was formulated by the original community of disciples. Whatever they saw they were mistaken? Why think that.

this is conjecture. It may be true. some scholars may believe it's true, but some scholares also think that Matthew and Luke werent written by matthew or luke and both borrowed heavily from the Sayings Gospel of Q and from mark - do you believe that? So maybe Paul got it from someone else, maybe he made it up, and maybe he had a completely different view on it as the latter part of 1COR 15 suggests - that still doesnt make it true.

Do you know how expensive writing was back then and yet you expect Paul to write out a list of about 500 names and this to be part of a creed that was memorized? Why didn't the rest of them write something down? Because writing was not the best means of getting your information out there.

too expensive and time consuming? do you relieve believe that is what prevented it? God sacrificed his son/himself, but it was too much trouble to actually identify 500 witnesses that were brought up to serve as evidence, and in so doing left no good evidence that 500 men were even real?

Actually, I think by and large the average person back then probably knew more comparatively speaking than we do today. Most of us don't even bother learning anything today. Note also that my argument has depended on people who are middle and upper class becoming Christians. These people DID have the means to check and these people DID have the honor to lose and these people would not risk their position without having a strong reason to do so.

really? you cant be serious.

Yeah it is derogatory. It boils down to a statement we have around here of "Ancient people were stupid." Sure. They would just blindly believe in a claim of a resurrection of a crucified Messiah. No problem.

yeah. They believed all sorts of other wacky stuff too - or was all that stuff real as well? People believe weird crap today, even with more information, so it all must be real, since people wont just believe weird made up false things....

it looks like you make strawmen and then blame others for it.

I'm here in America. We live in a different culture far removed from the Bible. We live about 2,000 years from the time. We live thousands of miles away from the location. We speak another language. Yet many many people in America believe the message of Christianity. There are people all over the world, billions, who believe the message. There are numerous Christians all over the world who right now would give their lives for Jesus Christ.

Looks to me like the method that was used worked pretty effectively.

The numbers are impressive, but they arent proof. People leave Christianity for islam and vise versa. People leave religion to become atheist and vise versa. Tom Barringer taught me that it's not about the numbers, but the bible also does, as in, "narrow is the way and few there be that find it." If lots of people are doing it, maybe youre not on the straight and narrow.

but even then, all the Christians are made of of competing types, many times with one sect thinking the others are wrong. Those who believe in Jesus dont even agree on what to believe about him.

and anyone from any current religion can say, "Looks to me like the method that was used worked pretty effectively." cool. I dont see it that way.

[tabibito]

How to become a Christian: Recognize the you are a sinner bound for an eternity in Hell; repent of your sins; believe in the resurrected Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

What I discovered was not true, or at least had very poor evidence to support believing it:

1. The existing manuscripts of the Bible have thousands of scribe alterations and additions to the text. The overwhelming majority of these alterations and additions are insignificant, but some such as the story of the woman caught in adultery; the story of the angel stirring the water at the pool of Bethesda; and the Johannine Commae, the only passage in the Bible that EXPLICITLY spells out the Trinity, are significant and very troubling, at least to me.

And again, the Bible quite firmly shows that where only one author says something, it isn't necessarily so. However, in the case of the explicit spelling out of the trinity in the Johannine Comma, it should be further noted that the Eastern Orthodox churches have never included that section in their bibles, and they are quite happily trinitarian. It also (seemingly) originates in the Latin texts. There is a nice body of scripture that makes plain the Trinity - the Father and the Son being readily demonstrable, the Holy Spirit being slightly less so.

2. There are many, many discrepancies in the Bible. One of the big ones is how Judas died and who purchased the Potter's Field. The Christian harmonizations for these discrepancies just don't seem believable. There are many instances in the Old Testament where the details regarding the number of casualties in a battle, or the number of chariots, or soldiers is told in two books and are wildly different.

Old Testament numbers: certainly, there are mistakes. Judas:That would be because the harmonisations are neither necessary nor make sense.

3. The six resurrection accounts in the four gospels, Acts, and I Corinthians are extremely difficult, and in my final analysis, impossible to reconcile. I recognize that eyewitnesses can give slightly different accounts of an event, but the "testimony" in these six accounts are so very different that I do not believe that they are from eyewitnesses. To me, it looks more like there was a core story of a first century prophet who taught some good teachings, was then executed, and after then over years the story became embellished with all kinds of wild, supernatural details (zombies roaming the streets? three hour eclipses??).

The bulk of these accounts is in accord, with some some points possibly being in conflict, and it does seem that a few discrepancies may indeed be irreconcilable.

4. Most scholars today believe that the authors of Matthew, Luke, and possibly John borrowed heavily from Mark. Why would Matthew and John, two alleged eyewitnesses need to borrow material from Mark, a non-eyewitness?

There are indeed quite a few scholars making the claim. I don't find their arguments compelling. Quite simply - how would you know whether they were borrowing (whether from Mark or from the mythical Q manuscript) from the same manuscript or witnesses to the same events. In some places, it is necessary to put together the accounts of two authors before a complete picture of events, or the full context of some of Jesus' statements, emerges.

5. Modern scholars do not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Jesus believed he did.

I'm not sure that he did.

6. Modern scientists and geologists can prove that there was no world wide flood that destroyed every breathing creature on earth except for eight people and two of each kind of animal. Jesus believed this story was true.

The story of Noah does not require a world wide flood (the Hebrew "erets" having a range of possible meanings), but it does require a near extinction event associated with extensive flooding. This is entirely within the realms of possibility in the geological record. However, it is also possible that all of Genesis until the record of Abraham is wholly mythological, and the record prior to Moses somewhat embellished - not possibilities that I can rule out at this stage.

7. The overwhelming majority of archeologists do not see any evidence to believe in the historicity of the Hebrew Slavery in Egypt, the Exodus, the Forty Years in the Sinai, the Conquest of Jerusalem, nor the great kingdoms of David and Solomon as described in the Bible. Jesus believed these events were historically accurate.

Hebrew slavery may be somewhat of a problem with translation rather than a problem with the original texts. There are many conditions which can be described as slavery without the slaves being actual chattels. The Biblical record of the sojourn in Sinai shows that evidence would be unlikely to exist. The conquest of Jerusalem - this is the first time I have heard of any objections to the Biblical record. Archaeological findings during the past five years have made David and Solomon increasingly more likely.

8. Many scholars believe the book of Daniel was written circa 200 BCE, during the Greek occupation of Palestine, by a Jew in Jerusalem, not a captive in Babylon and Persia. It is a forgery. Jesus believed Daniel was a real historical figure.

O.K. - there is a body of evidence to indicate that the book of Daniel was in fact written during the Maccabean period. The Jews didn't include his works among the writings of the prophets, but among "the writings" - it would seem that they have always known something that the churches have missed. So - the BOOK of Daniel dates to later than 200 BC ... the PERSON of Daniel is a different matter. The story of the person was in circulation long before the book, which incorporates the story, was written.

9. Jesus believed that Hades was a real place.

Based on what evidence? Off the top of my head, I can only remember Jesus referring to exclusion from Heaven and being cast into the outer darkness. Of course, "top of the head" isn't necessarily accurate.

10. We have no evidence that any of the alleged eyewitnesses to the resurrection were willing to die instead of renounce their testimony of seeing a resurrected body. James, the brother of Jesus was killed, but he could have been killed just because he was a member of a despised sect. Millions of fanatics of new sects have been killed in human history. Their willingness to die is not proof of the veracity of their beliefs. We have no proof of the martyrdom of any of the Eleven. These stories are all based on Church tradition.

Until the 1960s we had no evidence that Pilate had ever existed, and even now (as far as I know) there is only one piece of concrete evidence attesting the fact, and the results of examination were in general circulation around the mid 1970s. Until about 20 years ago, people (still relying on pre 1970s information) were still ridiculing the idea that he had ever existed. Stories of martyrdom of the 10 were in circulation prior to AD 180 - early enough for me to accept the veracity of at least the majority.

11. My last hope in keeping my faith was the testimony of the Apostle Paul. Why would a devout Pharisee, a hater and persecutor of Christianity, convert unless he really had seen a resurrected body?? However, upon reading Paul's own words, in I Corinthians and the 26th chapter of Acts, I saw that Paul never claimed he had seen a resurrected body, only a talking bright light...in a "heavenly vision". Visions are not reality. Bizarre conversions do happen.

Paul seems to have accepted the miracle of the resurrection as true because of the miracles he was seeing and performing on a fairly regular basis. He also pointed out to others - his own converts - that their faith was based on the miracles that they themselves had seen, and which at least some of their number were performing a fairly regular basis: i.e. their faith was not second hand, but based on personal experience. This "my faith" that you are referring to was a second hand faith. And your current lack of faith is a second hand lack of faith. The testimony of other people can only get a person so far: if that is all he has, he will inevitably find that his faith is groundless. This would be true even in the face of absolute verified scientific proof of every last minor detail of a second hand witness.

[Gary]

And again, the Bible quite firmly shows that where only one author says something, it isn't necessarily so. However, in the case of the explicit spelling out of the trinity in the Johannine Comma, it should be further noted that the Eastern Orthodox churches have never included that section in their bibles, and they are quite happily trinitarian. It also (seemingly) originates in the Latin texts. There is a nice body of scripture that makes plain the Trinity - the Father and the Son being readily demonstrable, the Holy Spirit being slightly less so.

Old Testament numbers: certainly, there are mistakes. Judas:That would be because the harmonisations are neither necessary nor make sense.


The bulk of these accounts is in accord, with some some points possibly being in conflict, and it does seem that a few discrepancies may indeed be irreconcilable.

There are indeed quite a few scholars making the claim. I don't find their arguments compelling. Quite simply - how would you know whether they were borrowing (whether from Mark or from the mythical Q manuscript) from the same manuscript or witnesses to the same events. In some places, it is necessary to put together the accounts of two authors before a complete picture of events, or the full context of some of Jesus' statements, emerges.

I'm not sure that he did.

The story of Noah does not require a world wide flood (the Hebrew "erets" having a range of possible meanings), but it does require a near extinction event associated with extensive flooding. This is entirely within the realms of possibility in the geological record. However, it is also possible that all of Genesis until the record of Abraham is wholly mythological, and the record prior to Moses somewhat embellished - not possibilities that I can rule out at this stage.

Hebrew slavery may be somewhat of a problem with translation rather than a problem with the original texts. There are many conditions which can be described as slavery without the slaves being actual chattels. The Biblical record of the sojourn in Sinai shows that evidence would be unlikely to exist. The conquest of Jerusalem - this is the first time I have heard of any objections to the Biblical record. Archaeological findings during the past five years have made David and Solomon increasingly more likely.

O.K. - there is a body of evidence to indicate that the book of Daniel was in fact written during the Maccabean period. The Jews didn't include his works among the writings of the prophets, but among "the writings" - it would seem that they have always known something that the churches have missed. So - the BOOK of Daniel dates to later than 200 BC ... the PERSON of Daniel is a different matter. The story of the person was in circulation long before the book, which incorporates the story, was written.

Based on what evidence? Off the top of my head, I can only remember Jesus referring to exclusion from Heaven and being cast into the outer darkness. Of course, "top of the head" isn't necessarily accurate.

Until the 1960s we had no evidence that Pilate had ever existed, and even now (as far as I know) there is only one piece of concrete evidence attesting the fact, and the results of examination were in general circulation around the mid 1970s. Until about 20 years ago, people (still relying on pre 1970s information) were still ridiculing the idea that he had ever existed. Stories of martyrdom of the 10 were in circulation prior to AD 180 - early enough for me to accept the veracity of at least the majority.

Paul seems to have accepted the miracle of the resurrection as true because of the miracles he was seeing and performing on a fairly regular basis. He also pointed out to others - his own converts - that their faith was based on the miracles that they themselves had seen, and which at least some of their number were performing a fairly regular basis: i.e. their faith was not second hand, but based on personal experience. This "my faith" that you are referring to was a second hand faith. And your current lack of faith is a second hand lack of faith. The testimony of other people can only get a person so far: if that is all he has, he will inevitably find that his faith is groundless. This would be true even in the face of absolute verified scientific proof of every last minor detail of a second hand witness.

I am aware that there are several passages in the NT that can be read to suggest a Duality of the Father and the Son, but do you have any other verse besides the verse in I John that explicitly spells out a Trinity?

" Stories of martyrdom of the 10 were in circulation prior to AD 180 - early enough for me to accept the veracity of at least the majority." Would you kindly give a source for this claim? If someone in 52 AD made a claim about the martyrdom of one of the apostles, I would view that as strong evidence. But if someone made this claim in, say, 130 AD, I would view this as most probably hearsay.

You seem to have a very high regard for the veracity of Paul's testimony. I did too when I was struggling with my doubts. But ask yourself this: would you accept similar bizarre, supernatural claims and statements of fact from another prophet, living 2,000 years ago, but belonging to different world religion?

[tabibito]

I am aware that there are several passages in the NT that can be read to suggest a Duality of the Father and the Son, but do you have any other verse besides the verse in I John that explicitly spells out a Trinity?

Yep - and by an author who decidedly wasn't John. (thus two witnesses) The key points regarding the identity of the Logos (word) are detailed in even more detail at Hebrews chapter 1.

" Stories of martyrdom of the 10 were in circulation prior to AD 180 - early enough for me to accept the veracity of at least the majority." Would you kindly give a source for this claim? If someone in 52 AD made a claim about the martyrdom of one of the apostles, I would view that as strong evidence. But if someone made this claim in, say, 130 AD, I would view this as most probably hearsay.

www.socinian.org/files/TestimoniumFlavianum.pdf

Marian Hillar
Center for Philosophy and Socinian Studies
The earliest references to Christianity and Christians in non-partisan non-Christian sources
were made by the Roman historians Publius Cornelius Tacitus (56 C.E.-ca 117 C.E.) and Gaius
Suetonius Tranquillus (ca 69 C.E.-ca 140 C.E.) who criticized Christianity as an oriental
superstition and a degraded cult that disrupted the social fabric and security of the state. Tacitus
wrote in The Annals of the Imperial Rome published ca 115 C.E.: "To suppress this rumor, Nero
fabricated scapegoats – and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians
(as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by
the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of the temporary setback the deadly
superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in
Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital. First Nero had the
self-acknowledged Christians arrested. Then on their information, large numbers of others were
condemned – not so much for incendiarism as for their anti-social tendencies."1 Suetonius
reported ca 120 C.E. in The Lives of Twelve Caesars that the Christians were considered Jews
who produced political unrest in the imperium and for that reason were expelled from Rome by
Claudius.2 In another place he described them as spreading new and evil superstition: "... afflicti
suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis nouae ac maleficae..."3 These are relatively
late documents and the references to Christ and Pontius Pilate reflect therefore information
provided by Christians themselves via the Gospel stories which were already written.

You seem to have a very high regard for the veracity of Paul's testimony. I did too when I was struggling with my doubts. But ask yourself this: would you accept similar bizarre, supernatural claims and statements of fact from another prophet, living 2,000 years ago, but belonging to different world religion?

I would not discount the possibility. Just as I do not discount the possibility of Japan having been saved from to attempted invasions by Ghengis Khan during the 13th Century, through divine intervention in the form of the kamikaze (divine wind) - typhoons that destroyed the invading fleets of each attempt. Some scholars dismiss the idea that typhoons were involved because no typhoons occur during the season(s) when the invasions were attempted. Being confident that the people of the time would certainly have known what a typhoon was, I kind of find those claims to the contrary quaint. No, I wouldn't accept bizarre, supernatural claims as fact - but I couldn't in all honesty declare them false: the possibility is undeniable.

[Gary]

Yep - and by an author who decidedly wasn't John. (thus two witnesses) The key points regarding the identity of the Logos (word) are detailed in even more detail at Hebrews chapter 1.


I would not discount the possibility. Just as I do not discount the possibility of Japan having been saved from to attempted invasions by Ghengis Khan during the 13th Century, through divine intervention in the form of the kamikaze (divine wind) - typhoons that destroyed the invading fleets of each attempt. Some scholars dismiss the idea that typhoons were involved because no typhoons occur during the season(s) when the invasions were attempted. Being confident that the people of the time would certainly have known what a typhoon was, I kind of find those claims to the contrary quaint. No, I wouldn't accept bizarre, supernatural claims as fact - but I couldn't in all honesty declare them false: the possibility is undeniable.

I do not dispute your reference to persecution of Christians under Nero and later Roman officials, but this in no way addresses the issue in dispute: Do we have reliable accounts of the martyrdom of any of the original disciples of Jesus? The fact that a significant number of members of a despised, new religious sect are willing to die for their beliefs is not new in human history, nor is it proof that the beliefs of these very devout persons are true...only that the persons willing to die for their beliefs sincerely BELIEVED them to be true.

I am asking you for evidence that Peter, Matthew, Andrew, Bartholomew, etc. were threatened with execution and torture for proclaiming to have seen with their own eyes, and touched with their own hands, and heard with their own ears, the walking/talking resurrected body of the dead Jesus of Nazareth, and, that these men were given the chance to save their lives by recanting this testimony, but they refused to recant their eyewitness testimony, and were subsequently tortured/executed.

[tabibito]

A further quote from the same text:

The quote from Arabic history by Agapius: For he [i.e. Josephus] says in the treatises that he has written on the governance [i.e. Antiquities] of the Jews: At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

While much has been made of the fact that the original text of Flavius Josephus' writings has been corrupted, Agapius does not cite Josephus' comments in the form that comes to us in the textus receptus. Agapius cites the text in the form it had before it was ... redacted. The changes are in fact minor, basically altering "it is reported" to "it is so."

[Gary]

A further quote from the same text:

The quote from Arabic history by Agapius: For he [i.e. Josephus] says in the treatises that he has written on the governance [i.e. Antiquities] of the Jews: At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

While much has been made of the fact that the original text of Flavius Josephus' writings has been corrupted, Agapius does not cite Josephus' comments in the form that comes to us in the textus receptus. Agapius cites the text in the form it had before it was ... redacted. The changes are in fact minor, basically altering "it is reported" to "it is so."

I do not question that very early after Jesus' death, Christians believed in a resurrection. But your source says nothing about the martyrdom of the Eleven, only their "reported" beliefs, which is our point of dispute.

Did you read the entire chapter of Luke 24? Where in this passage did Jesus and the disciples have time to make a trip up to Galilee?

[tabibito]

The text in Josephus: When, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition [being rigid in judging Jewish offenders], he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of the Judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.20

The problem here is that the Bible and Josephus don't match. Either church tradition has the wrong James being stoned, or Josephus got the wrong James. Either way, the James involved was a disciple of Christ. However, I'm don't accept that Josephus had the right disciple.

[tabibito]

I do not question that very early after Jesus' death, Christians believed in a resurrection. But your source says nothing about the martyrdom of the Eleven, only their "reported" beliefs, which is our point of dispute.

I think that the third quote from the text should give you the required information. At least one of the apostles was recorded to have been stoned for his beliefs, though had it been "James the Just", the apostle in question would not have been among the founding apostles. Nor could he have met Paul or written the epistle.

Did you read the entire chapter of Luke 24? Where in this passage did Jesus and the disciples have time to make a trip up to Galilee?

How long would it take men well accustomed to walking long distance to travel 68 miles (round trip: 136 miles). Even today's "average man" would do the round trip in less than ten days - well seasoned walkers would do it closer to six. Between the resurrection and Pentecost, 40 days elapsed.

With that, assuming that they left on (say) the ninth day after the resurrection and spent a week in Galilee, they would have been back in Jerusalem (quite comfortably) more than a week before Pentecost.

[Adrift]

The problem here is that the Bible and Josephus don't match. Either the Bible got the wrong James being stoned in Acts, or Josephus got the wrong James. Either way, the James involved was a disciple of Christ. However, I'm don't accept that Josephus had the right disciple.

Where does James get stoned in Acts?

[tabibito]

Where does James get stoned in Acts?

Nice catch - I've amended it to what I intended to say. (James recorded being stoned Acts???????????????) where'd I get that from I wonder?

And I just noticed another error in the next post, which I fixed. Maybe it has something to do with the time being close on 10 am - and me without sleep.

[Gary]

I think that the third quote from the text should give you the required information. At least one of the apostles was recorded to have been stoned for his beliefs, though had it been "James the Just", the apostle in question would not have been among the founding apostles. Nor could he have met Paul or written the epistle.

How long would it take men well accustomed to walking long distance to travel 68 miles (round trip: 136 miles). Even today's "average man" would do the round trip in less than ten days - well seasoned walkers would do it closer to six. Between the resurrection and Pentecost, 40 days elapsed.

With that, assuming that they left on (say) the ninth day after the resurrection and spent a week in Galilee, they would have been back in Jerusalem (quite comfortably) more than a week before Pentecost.

Where in Luke 24 would you fit in this trip to Galilee?

Let me be more specific:

In Luke 24 the chronology of events goes like this:

1. The women find the empty tomb.
2. Peter runs to verify the empty tomb on the same day.
3. Jesus appears to the two disciples on the Road to Emmaus the same day.
4. The two disciples return to Jerusalem the same day.
5. Jesus appears to the disciples in the upper room the same day.
6. Then Jesus leads them out to Bethany and ascends to heaven the same day.

When during this time period did Jesus and the disciples have the time to hot-trot-it up to Galilee to have a toasted fish breakfast along the Sea of Tiberius and then meet on a Galilean mountain to discuss the Great Commission as described in Matthew and the 21st chapter of John???

And, James the brother of Jesus was executed by the high priest according to the Bible and Josephus. This does not tell us why he was executed. Again, he could have been executed for many reasons. We are not told by anyone that James was given a chance to save his life if he would only deny seeing the resurrected Jesus, and he refused. If we had this information, I would consider it strong evidence for the Christian claim. But alas, we do not.

[tabibito]

Where in Luke 24 would you fit in this trip to Galilee?

Let me be more specific:

In Luke 24 the chronology of events goes like this:

1. The women find the empty tomb.
2. Peter runs to verify the empty tomb on the same day.
3. Jesus appears to the two disciples on the Road to Emmaus the same day.
4. The two disciples return to Jerusalem the same day.
5. Jesus appears to the disciples in the upper room the same day.
6. Then Jesus leads them out to Bethany and ascends to heaven the same day.

When during this time period did Jesus and the disciples have the time to hot-trot-it up to Galilee to have a toasted fish breakfast along the Sea of Tiberius and then meet on a Galilean mountain to discuss the Great Commission as described in Matthew and the 21st chapter of John???

Oh - that? You think that presents some sort of problem? Really??

And, James the brother of Jesus was executed by the high priest according to the Bible and Josephus. This does not tell us why he was executed. Again, he could have been executed for many reasons. We are not told by anyone that James was given a chance to save his life if he would only deny seeing the resurrected Jesus, and he refused. If we had this information, I would consider it strong evidence for the Christian claim. But alas, we do not.

Josephus makes it very simple. Ananus gathered the Sanhedrin, accused James of violating the Law along with some others and had them all stoned. As a consequence, Albinus removed Ananus from his position of high priest upon his arrival.

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity

Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them

Scripture Verse: Acts 12:1

Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. ₂ Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

© Copyright Original Source

To the best of my knowledge, that is the only record in the Bible of any James being killed by anyone: and not by the high priest at that. However, perhaps you are able to cite the reference.

[Gary]

Oh - that? You think that presents some sort of problem? Really??

Scripture Verse: Acts 12:1

Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. ₂ Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

© Copyright Original Source

To the best of my knowledge, that is the only record in the Bible of any James being killed by anyone: and not by the high priest at that. However, perhaps you are able to cite the reference.

[QUOTE=tabibito;230275]Oh - that? You think that presents some sort of problem? Really??


Would you please explain why there is no problem squeezing Jesus and the Eleven into a trip to Galilee into the passage in Luke 24?

Also, your references to the James killed by the high priest (whether an apostle or the brother of Jesus) still does not prove why he was killed. The question is: Was he killed for swearing that he had seen a resurrected Jesus with his own two eyes, given the opportunity to recant, refused, and was therefore executed? If so, please provide your source.

Millions of religious dissidents have been executed. That is not proof that their beliefs are true.