S
steve_b
Guest
John was thrown into boiling oil.
newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm
Peter was crucified …upside down
newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm
Andrew was crucified
newadvent.org/cathen/01471a.htm
Reliability of the NT when it comes to the prophecies and claims about Jesus
- Status
newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm
Peter was crucified …upside down
newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm
Andrew was crucified
newadvent.org/cathen/01471a.htm
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Well, I did say ‘copy and pasting’, I know but I did rather mean some kind of brief overview - more along the lines of “X said John was thrown into boiling oil, in whichever bit of text in AD whatever”.
Anyway, it looks like it’s all ‘tradition’ stuff really.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
Well if you look at it that way could not all of history (aside from modern recorded events) be called tradition?Well, I did say ‘copy and pasting’, I know but I did rather mean some kind of brief overview - more along the lines of “X said John was thrown into boiling oil, in whichever bit of text in AD whatever”.
Anyway, it looks like it’s all ‘tradition’ stuff really.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I thought the point of the ‘they all died horribly so Jesus must be God’ argument was supposed to be the creation of certainty?
I can see the point of apologists using “we know more about Jesus than we do about Caesar/whoever , so Jesus must be God” approach but it’s not really got much to do with the martyrs’ argument.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
I really never considered the whole “died so horribly thing.” To me it was the reaction of the Apostles and their behavior. Here is a group of men who’s master/teacher had been killed and they were confused and scared and justly so. Then, all of the sudden they were out in the streets and in the Temple and the synagogues preaching in this guys name, in obvious disinterest if their actions will get them killed as well. Does not matter how they were killed to me, just that they did not cease to proclaim in the name of The Christ until they were killed.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Trouble is there that you’re using the NT to prove the NT which works with people who see the NT as scripture/reportage but not with those of us who don’t see it as anything of the sort. The advantage of the “they all died horribly so Jesus must be God” approach is that one is supposed to be able to verify the idea that they ‘all died horribly’ so that one then accepts that Jesus must be God because, otherwise, they’d not have been prepared to die horribly.I really never considered the whole “died so horribly thing.” To me it was the reaction of the Apostles and their behavior. Here is a group of men who’s master/teacher had been killed and they were confused and scared and justly so. Then, all of the sudden they were out in the streets and in the Temple and the synagogues preaching in this guys name, in obvious disinterest if their actions will get them killed as well. Does not matter how they were killed to me, just that they did not cease to proclaim in the name of The Christ until they were killed.
That might vaguely work if one could verify the idea that they all died horribly but it sort of comes down to something like “Tertullian said they died horribly” which means that, in effect, one is supposed to accept that Jesus was God because Tertullian said so.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
A fair point, Kaninchen. Here are three points about which we are more certain:
The Stoning of Stephen by the Jewish Sanhedrin
Acts 7:54-60
4 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.
Jewish High Priest Authorizes Persecution and Imprisonment of the Christians
Acts 9:1-2
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
The Death of the Apostle James at the hands of King Herod
Acts 12:1-3
It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2 He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. 3 When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread.
If these eyewitness accounts are correct, is there really any reason why we cannot believe that traditions about the martyrdoms of the other apostles are accurate?
Further, we know that Ignatius of Antioch was martyred around AD 107 and Polycarp was martyred around AD 155. Thus, we see that Stephen and James were martyred in the middle of the first century and Ignatius and Polycarp in the second. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that the other Christian leaders of the day - the apostles in particular - fared no better in the years in between?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Perhaps the reason so many of us see the gospels as “reportage” is because the authors state that they are writing “reportage”.
Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Acts 1:1-2
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
John 21:20-25
20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
You’re free to believe whatever you wish, Randy, the question is whether the approach brings the kind of certainty that you’d like others to accept and using the NT to prove the NT works with those who believe that the NT is scripture/reportage but not with those of us who don’t.
If somebody is murdered today and their grandchild is murdered in eighty years time, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the rest of their family will fare no better in between?Further, we know that Ignatius of Antioch was martyred around AD 107 and Polycarp was martyred around AD 155. Thus, we see that Stephen and James were martyred in the middle of the first century and Ignatius and Polycarp in the second. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that the other Christian leaders of the day - the apostles in particular - fared no better in the years in between?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
It’s when you start saying that the rest of us must believe something just because you do that problems arise.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Based on the evidence, I will believe, thank you.
You appeal to the fallacy of a circular argument as another reason for your disbelief, but I would not begin by using the NT to prove the NT. I would begin by demonstrating the historical reliability of the gospels from Jewish and Roman historians, from archaeological evidence, and from the accuracy of the descriptions of people, places, and customs, etc. found within the gospels. This objective evidence suggests that the authors of the gospels were in position to write eyewitness testimony, they desired to write eyewitness testimony, and they did write eyewitness testimony.
The problem isn’t that there is insufficient evidence to convince an open-minded person; the problem is that you are not open-minded, and your objections are volitional. IOW, you don’t want to believe, so it is not possible to satisfy you. Further, you won’t read anything that I link, you mock anything you think is “cut and paste” and typing it out myself is a waste of time.
But that does not mean that such evidence does not exist. It’s there if you want to look.
Kaninchen, 70 years ago, World War II ended, and the world began to learn what the Nazis had done to your people. Today, we see similar oppression beginning to take place in France and other European countries. Isn’t it reasonable for us to assume that anti-Semitism did not die-out completely in between only to rise again recently? The same hatred has been there all along, hasn’t it?
Similarly, when we know that Stephen and James were martyred in AD 55 for being Christians and that Ignatius and Polycarp were martyred 50 and 100 years later for being Christians, can’t we reasonably conclude that the hatred for Christians was present in the few years in between for which we have no specific historical record?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
When have I ever told you, Kaninchen, that you must believe that Jesus is the messiah just because I believe He is?
Or have I tried to present you with evidence and information that you might find compelling?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I’m sorry that I seem to exasperate you, Randy.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You don’t exasperate me, Kaninchen, and I’m sorry if I’ve given you the impression that you do.
H
humble_catholic
Guest
You have to remember that there are 2 factors here sonofman. One is that christianity was a tony insignificant sect back in the first century and that is one reason that there aren’t any copies dated from 33ad . Coupled with the fact that at the time of 1st century Jerusalem the Jews of that time had an amazing oral history .
Also ask yourself , why in the world would the apostles have written that the women found the tomb first to a first century Jewish audience? Women in first century Jewish culture weren’t even allowed to testify against men in court which tells us that in first century Jerusalem women were considered to be horrible unreliable eyewitnesses and their testimonies are not to be trusted . This is called the historic criterion of embarressment which is a huge point in favor of the apostles telling the truth of what they genuinely believed that they saw (the empty tomb, the resurrected Christ etc).
You can’t just explain this all away by saying that we don’t have any copies that are dated from 35ad. You can’t even say that the copies found from the second century weren’t reliable because in those 2nd century copies the story still says that it was the women who found the tomb if Christ empty first and it was the women that saw the resurrected Christ first…
All of these points put together is compellingly powerful evidence for the historicity of the empty tomb and the risen Christ. The only historians that don’t acceot this are the ones who have an aprioi bias against miracles .
These evidences were enough to convince the atheist CS Lewis to convert to Christianity and they are good enough to convince any honest seeker as well.
If you are still unsure just keep praying and holding on . Even mother Teresa herself went through some doubts but she never let go of Christ even amidst the turmoil.
S
steve_b
Guest
consider framing this another way.
You’re about to be thrown to the lions for your faith. You’re given a choice. Worship our gods and live or keep worshipping your God and die… a horrible death. What do YOU choose?
A person would have to be reallllllly committed to their belief to die for their faith…agreed? Afterall, one could ask themselves, if they are having 2nd thoughts, or they succumb to absolute fear, saying to themselves how wrong could it be to worship all the other gods and live…I don’t want to die, certainly not this horrible way…right?
Point being, those who die(d) for their faith are martyrs. They made a choice between gods and God and they chose God (Jesus).
Here are the thoughts and wishes of such a martyr. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was arrested and sent to Rome to be thrown to the lions for being a Catholic bishop. Ignatius writes to the Church of Rome, pleading for them not to help him or try and stop this. He wanted to die. Here are his words
I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless you hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God].
From Epistle to the Romans ch 4
K
Kaninchen
Guest
The problem with that argument is that people of all faiths have done a lot of dying - in the early Christian era hundreds of thousands of Jews died and the rest forced into diaspora in the struggle with the pagan Romans. Dying for one’s faith is not a Christian monopoly.
S
steve_b
Guest
I didn’t say it was.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Kaninchen, I agree with you. Shocked?
I/m sure the folks at Masada could have taken another way out. They didn’t.Clearly people do willingly die for causes they believe in. However, the original apostles were in a position to KNOW - not believe - but KNOW with certainty whether Jesus had risen from the dead. And if He did not rise and they knew He did not, then they were liars.
Now, it may have seemed like a game to them at first (“Hey, let’s mess with Caiaphas…”) or possibly a way to get rich (“We’ll take up a collection at every prayer meeting…”) or even a way to meet girls (“Chicks dig religious leaders…”???), but when death was on the line, they simply could have admitted they made the whole thing up and gone home.
They didn’t.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I don’t know who you’re trying to convince because you’ve already said it’s pointless in my case - a conclusion on your part that seems entirely sensible, though not entirely well-reasoned, by the way.
From my perspective, whenever you quote the NT to me, Randy, all you’re doing is asking me to indulge in ‘lit crit’, like arguing about the motivations of a Shakespeare character in English Literature class at School.
- Status