Jesus- Good Teacher or Messiah?
Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion. In fact, there is much more evidence for the existence of Jesus than Alexander the Great, and Alexander the Great is an accepted historical figure (read more here).
Some people say that Jesus was only a teacher, nothing more. Yet, does this make logical sense? (For the purposes of this post, I will call it the “teacher assumption”.)
Let’s go through the scenario. Jesus’ death is estimated be around 26-37 AD. There were eyewitnesses that stated that they had seen Jesus after his death and alleged resurrection. Of course, eyewitnesses can either be mistaken, lying, or right.
Let’s say that the eyewitnesses were simply mistaken. This is very improbable, considering that hundreds of people saw Jesus, and he appeared many times. For example, in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he states, “Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.” No mass collaboration or hallucination is possible, because people saw him in different locations at different times. Furthermore, when the accounts of these eyewitnesses were given, they were still alive, and able to contradict anything that was not the truth.
But let’s say that the eyewitnesses were lying. The main “eyewitnesses” were the apostles themselves. According to other historical documents of the time, most of the apostles were martyred. For example, Peter was crucified under Nero (AD 64). Now, these people claimed to have seen Christ with their very own eyes. And they died for it. Why would someone be willing to die for something they knew was a lie? They got nothing out of lying except pain.
A common reaction to this would be to say that people die for their beliefs all the time: those suicide bombers and such. However, these people today die for what they believe is true. In order for the teacher assumption to be correct, the apostles must have died for what they know was a lie, and gained nothing.
Logically, this assumption does not make any sense. Therefore, it is ironic that many people claim to be logical and rational, and yet, still reject Christianity. But when we do look at Jesus’ death and resurrection logically, we can see that if the eyewitnesses were not mistaken or lying, they must have been right.
1Morpheus
wrote on 5 April 2007 at 7:42
good stuff, Katelyn… are you familiar with C.S. Lewis’ Trilemma? (was Christ liar, lunatic, or Lord)
2Katelyn Sills
wrote on 5 April 2007 at 11:48
Yeah, I read Mere Christianity a couple of years ago. That’s a good argument.
3Andy Nevis
wrote on 8 April 2007 at 22:48
Very nice. I never knew that there was more evidence of Jesus in history than Alexander the Great. Good research. Makes you wonder why liberals still object to teaching about Chirst’s life, even in historical contexts, in public schools (actually, we both know why, but that is another blog post
)
You are absolutely correct. It makes no sense that Jesus’s deciphles would die rather than admit their “lie.” It’s concievable they would have made up a story, but once they were faced with death they would have renounced it.
Great post.
4lee
wrote on 18 April 2007 at 15:18
Good article Katelyn. Btw, for Biblical studies, have you ever checked out Salvation History. It’s a free, Biblical Study website run by one of my favorite theologians
-Lee
5vichycycl
wrote on 25 April 2007 at 19:38
Maybe
the Romans couldn’t kill him because that would stir up too
much dissension in the area they were occupying, so
they staged his death to quell his growing popularity
which was upsetting the estabblishment so.
He made a deal to fake the death but then he reneged and came
back out and the Romans were embarrassed.
So the establishment killed those sho claimed to have seen
him living after his alleged death.
They weren’t lying, they weren’t mistaken.
They saw him alive because he hadn’t died yet.
Or maybe 1 of a thousand others I could think up.
It is sad a fit mind pursues the support of an invisible
fictitious entity.
6Katelyn Sills
wrote on 25 April 2007 at 19:53
Let’s see: “The Romans couldn’t kill Jesus because of how it would look, so they just pretended to kill him.” This makes no sense whatsoever. Please explain.
Secondly, not only did the witnesses see him alive, but they saw him dead too. It’s a little hard to fake having nails through your body and hanging on a cross.
For someone is much too intelligent to believe in “an invisible fictitious entity,” you might want to improve your critical thinking skills.
7vichycycl
wrote on 26 April 2007 at 4:37
“Please explain how the Roman’s couldn’t kill Jesus.”
See next sentence where I mentioned stirring up mass popular dissension in a land they were trying to control. Regimes don’t like uprisings.
Critical thinking:
Someone hundreds of years ago writes that many saw a dead man walking and you take it as fact, from one reference.
If I wrote a book that said I saw Boris Yeltsin in my room this morning, would you believe that?
People lie for power all the time. This myth gives the Cristian church power.
My critical thinking isn’t bound to proving something I already believe. My science makes me scrutinize empirically then use double-checked data to find an explanation, regardless whether it supports any ideology.
8Katelyn Sills
wrote on 26 April 2007 at 6:22
Jesus was the cause of the uprising in the Romans’ and Jewish leaders’ eyes. So why would they not want to kill him? It still makes no sense.
I take it as a fact because:
1) It’s not one reference. In case you don’t know, the Bible is made of many books. It was combined after the fact. Non-biblical sources also mention Jesus.
2) Like I stated earlier, people died for their statements about seeing Jesus after his death. If you were willing to die for your belief in seeing Boris Yeltsin, I would be inclined to believe you, or think you were simply crazy. With the magnitude of the sightings of Jesus, all of those people could not have been crazy. Therefore, I believe them.
It is true that people lie for power all of the time. But what if you won’t get power for lying? What if you wouldn’t gain anything at all? In fact, what if you would die for your lie? How many people would lie then?
On the contrary, your “critical thinking” is trying to prove that Jesus couldn’t possibly done what he did. That is something you obviously already believe and are biased by. If not, then why don’t you question the events of Alexander the Great’s life equally as much?
9vichycycl
wrote on 26 April 2007 at 17:13
I think critical thinking is under attack. It is under attack from conspiracy theorists, creationists, and radical religious crusaders. – Michael Sherman, director of the skeptics society
I have enjoined you in this ideological conversation because I was compelled by my respect for your obvious good mind. I believe all humans are equally equipped, there are no ’stupid’ people. I believe some are indoctrinated. I’m sorry, I know that sounds condescending.
Don’t take my word for the value of constant doubt, give science a try. I gave religion a try. I went to retreats in my 20s, I wanted to be a priest at 11. I got a biology degree at 30.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f7_1174188096
May your pursuits lead you only to truth.
10Katelyn Sills
wrote on 26 April 2007 at 18:17
Thank you for your discussion here.
I’d like to point out that religion and science are not opposing values. Both seek the truth. The only problem is when people automatically reject one or the other.
While I do appreciate your comments, I think it is quite ironic that you pride yourself on scientific thinking, yet illogically reject factual information because it is “religion”. A truly scientific individual (not that I am saying that I can always do this, but I try) should be able to evaluate ideas regardless of their association or one’s own bias.
You still have not explained your “scientific” reasoning for why you think the Romans only pretended to kill Jesus. Instead, you completely ignored the issue in your last comment, instead including a movie on aliens and pictures of Mary on cheese sandwiches. In my opinion, it’s perfectly clear who wishes to know the truth here and who doesn’t.
11vichycycl
wrote on 26 April 2007 at 22:42
I did not say that the Romans did not kill Jesus. I have no evidence for that so I don’t present it as fact. That’s the scientific method. Rather I suggested it as an hypothesis of a possible alternate history to the one reference you quote. Your reference is unsupported by evidence.
Show me one fact I’ve ignored. I seek nothing but facts. Are there talking snakes? Can dead people rise? Do you really believe dead people can rise? Ask yourself. You have the capacity to discriminate fact from fiction, you are human. Did Noah get all the marsupials to Australia on a wooden Boat? Was Jesus’ mother a virgin? Is it ok to kill someone who works on Sunday?
You know these answers. I ask as though I’ve never heard any doctrine: is it OK to kill those who work Sundays? Did God make Adam and Eve at the same time (Genesis 1) or did he wait and take a rib out and make Eve later (Genesis 2). Whales have pelvises. Pelvises are only good for walking on land. Whales used to walk on land and evolved. I can do a chromosome squash on your parents and show you haw your DNA is a crossover-based mix of your parents’ DNA. http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/rudiments03.html
Live proof of transitory speciation exist in photos yet evolution is denied.
Please see what dogma denies you. I search for god all the time. I’d love to meet someone omniscient. Please show me evidence.
I did not say the Romans did not kill Jesus, and you say I did. I postulated another possible thread of events, and you say I claimed somehting unprovable. Of course its unprovable, I never said it happened.
What I suggested is that a regime may not want to alienate its entire subjugated populous because it may have been easier to dictate to appeased people than to an uprising mob, so they told the Pharisees they killed Jesus and then whispered to the apostles ‘don’t worry, we’ll flog him and claim we killed him, we’ll send him far away and he can’t come back but you can love him all you want’, thus pleasing all sides as best they could.
I have no doubt Jesus existed. I seriously doubt he was dead 3 days then alive again. I bet anything his mom was no virgin.
The bible is one reference, regardless of chapters or books within. I deny no evidence.
12lee
wrote on 27 April 2007 at 12:04
Hi vichycycl,
I would recommend that you look up the Miracle of Fatima. It was predicted by 3 young children months ahead of time, and occurred on October 17, 1917. It was reported in the New York Times, and is listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica. There were 70,000 witnesses onsite (included atheists and communists, who came to sneer), and villages up to 50 miles around!
Note who DIDN’T predict the “miraculous solar phenomenon” – astronomers, scientists. And the miracle does not lend itself to the scientific method, because it is not reproducible.
I would also recommend looking up the Miracle of Lanciano.
A good book to read, to see just how intellectual and philosophical Christianity is, is Introduction to Christianity, but our current Pope Benedict XVI (written in the 1960’s). Excellent book!
You are incorrect in suggesting that to be religious is to be unscientific. If you’ve followed conversations on Katelyn’s blog before, you would know that Skeptical Catholic is a die-hard evolutionist. Yet he still believes in God, and that Christ is the Son of God. I, looking at the same evidence, come to the same conclusion as Antony Flew, the former atheistic philosopher who came to believe in God, since he concluded that the universe and life was too complex to have come about by random chance. This is known as Intelligent Design (it is suggested, with some justification, that ID is more of a philosophical perspective than a scientific one).
Also, did you know it was a priest, Father Georges Lemaître, that came up with the Big-Bang Theory? Or that the head of the Human Genome Project, Dr Francis Collins, is a believer in Christ?
Can I prove to you that God exists, or that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and one with the Father and Holy Ghost? Nope. If I could “prove” it, it would require an act of faith on your part. Think of it like this… do those in heaven have faith? No, they don’t. They don’t have faith because they “see” God. They no longer require faith.
It doesn’t particularly bother me if people believe differently than I do. I have several Christian friends at work. But I also am friends with a couple of atheists, as well as some Hindus (as a computer programmer, I work with many Indians), and a Muslim (from Iran, now an American citizen, very nice guy). But I find it strange that atheists are so bothered that others believe in Christ (or whomever). After all, if there is no Someone or Something out there, what does it hurt to let people believe there is? After all, we’ll all be dead in around 100 years anyway. Yet believers (of most stripes) have something to look forward to – heaven (or nirvanna, or whatever). The atheist has “nothingness” to look forward to. At any rate we’ll all find out sooner or later.
There are several ways to pursue truth. One is theology. I don’t think ANYONE would call Saint Thomas Aquinas (author of the Summa Theologica unintelligent
Another is history (can you *prove*, scientifically, that Julius Caesar existed, for example). Another is philosophy. And another is science. To limit your understanding to just one is to limit yourself horribly in this world.
-Lee
13vichycycl
wrote on 27 April 2007 at 18:16
‘I would recommend that you look up the Miracle of Fatima.’
I did. Zero evidence that three kids got told anything, zero evidence of the solar event. Encyclopedia also lists ‘Unicorn’. Nothing written anywhere is proof of any event. Richard Dawkins saying evolution is real does not prove evolution. Let me make this really clear: nothing written proves any event.
‘Note who DIDN’T predict the “miraculous solar phenomenon” – astronomers, scientists’
Correct. Please prove it occurred.
I have photos of transitional species (missing links).
See post 11 for the link.
‘You are incorrect in suggesting that to be religious is to be unscientific.’
Correct, if I did imply that, I was unspecific. I suggest that belief in a stroy of miraculous creation of the universe is delusional. There is no evidence for it (that isn’t written anecdotes). There is much for cosmology.
‘Also, did you know it was a priest, Father Georges Lemaître, that came up with the Big-Bang Theory? Or that the head of the Human Genome Project, Dr Francis Collins, is a believer in Christ?’
Yes, so what? neither I nor my scientific friends uses that term. May I suggest “A brief History of Time” by Dr. Stephen Hawking, Dean of Physics at Cambridge.
‘But I find it strange that atheists are so bothered that others believe in Christ (or whomever).’
I am bothered that young people are being indoctrinated with delusion, when their beautiful minds could be pursuing verifiable truth. Believing in an untestable, invisible deity corrupts the mind in that it means you do not apply strict scrutiny to your understanding. If you did, you wouldn’t quoter an anecdotal story of someone who told someone they saw an unverified solar phenomenon, and cite a text as proof of an event.
Please don’t accuse me of not scrutinizing the history of Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. I put them to the same rigorous scrutiny as everything else. I take NOTHING on faith. How can I be more clear. Doubt, said Rene Descartes, a creationist, is the essence of a healthy mind.
14Lee
wrote on 27 April 2007 at 18:35
Well, if you are “bothered”, I suggest that is a weakness in your personality
You’ll find that believers throughout history have made great contributions to both science and the welfare of mankind.
As to the Miracle of Fatima, I believe that reporters observing and reporting on what is seen is important. Including those who came to “disprove” it. Of course, it is not “verifiable” in the sense of being reproducible. Neither is evolution. Go ahead and try to prove it. It is a theory, but you cannot “reproduce” it
It’s not a bad theory, but don’t be surprised if it is replaced with a better one in time. Galileo was closer than Aristotle in his theories, but he was still wrong. He believed *everything* went around the sun. (In essence, he was still 100% wrong. But his math equations worked better than Aristotle’s, which is what mattered).
Also, considering the vast mass of humanity have held religious beliefs, both in the past and today, suggest that atheism is the abberation, not faith. It suggests that belief is normal, and that one would have to be “indoctrinated” in order not to believe.
Anyway, people believe what they want to believe. And if you want to let it bother you that others have faith, so be it
God Bless
-Lee
15Lee
wrote on 27 April 2007 at 18:44
Oh
I’ve posted this in the past, but evolutionists themselves are skeptical of neo-Darwinism (evolution through gradual change), due to a general (though not complete) lack of transitional forms -> The Chicago Conference of 1980. Throughout the years, more conferences have acknowledged that a general lack of transitional forms exist, which is why evolutionists are moving towards the Punctuated Equilibrium theory, the idea that every so often so many genetic mutations occur at the same time, that one species begets another w/o transitional forms.
Yes, it takes faith to believe in this too. Generally, it takes faith to believe in whatever you do, since you are always depending on the “word” of others (be it professors, books, whatever).
Sorry, I’ve studied this and wanted to share, since it’s interesting.
Again, God Bless,
Lee
16vichycycl
wrote on 27 April 2007 at 18:56
Heh, I have a personality problem. None of my questions were answered, I answered all yours. Evolution is provable, have I not pointed to a link that does so twice in this thread. Choose to ignore all the poiints I make. Whales can be photographed, evolutionary processes are occurring everywhere everyday, provably. I’ve done chromosome squashes. Remember I said I admired Descartes? Yes, believers are humans who can contribute great things. You are as beautiful a human as any other that evolved on this fragile ball of dirt in the vastness.
You try to put words in my mouth. I don’t hate believers, I hate lies.
History is full of the uneducated masses. Public education is relatively new. That proves the growth of atheism is abherrent? Heh.
Howcome I answer questions and you don’t. Is it OK to kill people (stone to death) for working sundays. Please tell me if you mean to take that part of THE good book as metaphoric, because then I will know I am speaking to someone who does not hold it up as historical account.
I don’t want to be mean to you. I want to wake people up from the fear-based dogma that has lied to my favourite species for hundreds of years. I want my non-christian friends to stop being ostracized. I want good things; I admire people who start websites to speak out against things they abhor like abortion. I abhor misinformation of all kinds.
Most of all I want to free minds from hazy thinking. Maybe you could tell me if you would still be a moral person if, hypothetically, there were no god. Or do you have no morals without God as theists say? I’m nice cuz I checked and I prefer nice people (empirical observatiuon and induction).
17vichycycl
wrote on 27 April 2007 at 19:10
’since you are always depending on the “word” of others (be it professors, books, whatever).
What part of ‘here’s the photos, link 11′ don’t you get?
Faith is a bad thing. I isolate and microphotograph actual DNA. I TOUCH IT! NO books, no professors, no words are in the room.
Answer one question please, you haven’t the last. How about, when God commanded the world be flooded, how many pregnant women lost their lives and their unborn foetuses?
Bless you too.
18Lee
wrote on 27 April 2007 at 19:33
Public education is relatively new.
Ah, yes, those uneducated, such as John Paul II. Spoke 8 languages (he was a philologist), philosophy professor (phenomenology), actor, theologian, etc. Did I mention Dr Collins??
You try to put words in my mouth. I don’t hate believers, I hate lies.
A belief is not a lie. If evolution is proven false (it probably will be someday, with an even better theory) does that mean you are lying to me?
Howcome I answer questions and you don’t.
You didn’t ask me
You asked Katelyn. No I don’t believe it is ok to stone people for working on Sundays. But that was the historical culture of the Israelites at the time, and it is recorded in the Bible. The customs of Israel were actually more tolerant than those of the surrounding cultures, but still not perfect. As for stoning people, let me refer you to the New Testament, the fulfilled law, established by Christ -> John Ch 8. You are showing that your theology is kinda weak, since you are using uneducated questions, thrown by beginners. I suggest this website for some good instruction. Don’t worry, it’s free, and you’ll be able to make better arguments.
because then I will know I am speaking to someone who does not hold it up as historical account.
Ah, well, since you asked (this time, again the other time you asked Katelyn), did you know that Mose’s father-in-law is referred to with 4 different names and two different nationalities in 3 different books in the Old Testament (let me know if you want me to post all those links… I will if you are truly curious)? So no, I don’t try to reduce the Good Book to a math textbook or a science book. That is our egotistical culture trying to push our way of thinking on a book, parts of which are 3000 years old. Nor do I believe in the literalistic “serpent” (in Hebrew, a Nahash…). What is important are the lessons that are taught in the Bible, that adultery is wrong, that the Sabbath should be honored, etc.
Yes, as you get into the “historical books”, it is a historical account (starting with Joshua). Abraham is also historical, but is written about in a more mythological way.
Also, you said that only the Bible refers to Jesus. Many first century documents refer to Jesus, all Christian. Look at the Didache, which was written before parts of the New Testament, in 80 A.D
Micro-evolution is occurring. Neo-Darwinist macro-evolution is not necessarily occurring. Did you check out the webpage on Puncuated equilibrium, by chance?
By the way, the webpage you referred to is not “proof”. You are putting “faith” in a page on the web! For goodness sake 
Yep, everything on the internet is factual. Yup 
Anyway, gotta get the kids to bed. I have 4, and a 5th on the way (ages 10, 4, 2, 1, and another due on Oct 29).
Btw, I am not offended that you believe differently than me. I just enjoy talking about this stuff at times, and Katelyn is one bright girl. In my humble opinion, that fact that she is able to believe despite the atheistic indoctrination that occurs in our society through the press and often the schools says something about strength of character. Really, though, since something like 70% of the country is Christian, for that to bother you, well, I’d just let it go.
But that’s just me. I talk faith with my atheist friends, and they say ‘that’s interesting, here’s what I believe’. And if someone was going to “convert” me to atheism, it would be someone who showed respect for what I believed in inthe first place. If it really does “bother” you, I suggest in the future you show respect for people’s beliefs, find common ground, and then make good arguments to move them from that common ground to your side. They way you do it just drives people away. People of faith can do that too.
-Lee
19vichycycl
wrote on 27 April 2007 at 20:41
I say the masses were uneducated and you accuse me of calling a pope uneducated. Who needs to learn good argument?
I’m asking the page, not you specifically, Lee, nor the beautiful and courageous Katelynn. Get over yourself.
The bible is not historical account and is not terribly relative to your contemporary culture. Thank you for answering that question.
Now you may have the last word. I’m sorry I thought I could have this conversation with theists. It goes nowhere. I am not ducking out. You call my pointing out one source (a web page with photos of fossils in a museum today) as my saying it’s my only source, when I told you I have personally developed the photos of the chromosomes I isolated.
Pursue truth, you will smile! Good luck Katelynn. Cya l8r
20Lee
wrote on 27 April 2007 at 21:06
God Bless you and your family, vichycycle. Cya later.
21Katelyn Sills
wrote on 28 April 2007 at 19:40
I know you have already “exited”, vichycycl, but hopefully, this will be of interest to anyone else reading.
Let’s go back to my original point. If Jesus’ resurrection never occurred, the disciples would have willingly died for what they knew was a lie, for no gain. Your alternate hypothesis (which I never stated was unprovable but instead, illogical) was that the Romans pretended to kill Jesus to please the crowds and Jewish leaders, while telling the apostles that Jesus would simply be sent away. In this case, the apostles would still be dying for a lie. They would be killed for saying that Jesus had been resurrected (meaning died and rose again, not simply still alive) when they knew this was not the case. Thus, your hypothesis is not only illogical but does not solve the question of why the apostles would die for a lie. Perhaps a critical thinker such as yourself should reevaluate their hypotheses before posting them.
Evolution has no relevance in this discussion, since it could occur with or without Jesus’ divinity. If you want to discuss that, you can visit this page.
You state, “The bible is one reference, regardless of chapters or books within. I deny no evidence.” This is incredibly ignorant. The books of the Bible were written by different authors at different times, some a thousand years apart. It’s as if you complied evidence and reasoning about evolution for me (an excerpt of Dawkins, or a story about the whale pelvic bones, for example), and then I rejected the whole thing because it was “one reference”. Just because something is now complied doesn’t mean it was from one source.
You stated, “I am bothered that young people are being indoctrinated with delusion, when their beautiful minds could be pursuing verifiable truth.” Me, too. That’s why I don’t hold with illogical arguments such as the ones you presented.
22Lee
wrote on 28 April 2007 at 22:02
Hi Katelyn,
I thought, too, that the false either-or choice was a bit strange (evolution or Jesus). The fact is that belief can exist with evolution, with examples as SC, Dr. Collins, John Paul, etc (that’d just be how God did it), but that atheism cannot exist without evolution.
I think it was just a Straw Man fallacy. Set up an argument that can be (maybe) won, despite it having no relevance, and then win that irrelevant argument and state that you’ve ‘won’ the whole conversation.
-Lee
23Steven Carr
wrote on 29 April 2007 at 5:19
‘According to other historical documents of the time, most of the apostles were martyred. For example, Peter was crucified under Nero (AD 64). ‘
There are no historical documents of the time. The earliest reference is in Tertullian, from the 3RD century AD , who states ‘ where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!’
Was John really plunged unhurt into boiling oil?
I am engaged in two debates on the resurrection at http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12222 and http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12232
Comments are always welcome on that forum
The apostles didn’t die for a lie. That is all Christian myths.
Even Paul, who was there, said Christians were persecuted on the issue of circumcision , not resurrection, and Christian leaders avoided persecution by simply compromising theie beliefs
Galatians 6:12 ‘Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.’
In fact, some church fathers uses to boast about the lack of persecution of Christianity as a sign that it had been favoured by God.
Origen, writing in Contra Cells Book 3 Chapter 8, said that there had been very few Christian martyrs.
“For in order to remind others, that by seeing a few engaged in a struggle for their religion, they also might be better fitted to despise death, some, on special occasions, and these individuals who can be easily numbered, have endured death for the sake of Christianity, –God not permitting the whole nation to be exterminated, but desiring that it should continue, and that the whole world should be filled with this salutary and religious doctrine.”
This was in the 240s AD. Even after two centuries of “persecution”, Origen could still say that Christian martyrs were “easily numbered”.
Of course, it was an irony that just a few years later, there really was a terrible persecution of Christians….
Perhaps God stopped protecting Christians just after Origen wrote that the nation of Christians was protected by God??
24Steven Carr
wrote on 29 April 2007 at 13:50
There were many Christians killed by Nero, who charged them with the fire of Rome. (Although no Christian in the first century AD links any apostles with death under Nero)
All they had to do was deny the lie of setting fire to Rome and they would have been set free.
25Katelyn Sills
wrote on 1 May 2007 at 15:55
You’re right, Lee, instead of saying “Evolution has no relevance in this discussion, since it could occur with or without Jesus’ divinity.”, I should have stated that Jesus’ divinity could occur with or without evolution.
26Katelyn Sills
wrote on 1 May 2007 at 16:40
Thanks for joining the discussion.
From looking at your current debates and reading your comments here, it seems like your mode of argument is to speak authoritatively and hope that people believe you.
For instance, you state quite certainly, “There are no historical documents of the time.” However, you are either forgetting or ignoring the following:
Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80-98, speaks of Peter\’s martyrdom in the following terms: \”Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death… Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.\”
Dyonisius of Corinth wrote: \”You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time\” (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).
These are both before Tertullian’s statement.
Secondly, you state, “The apostles didn’t die for a lie. That is all Christian myths.” Your evidence is that they died because they supposedly weren’t circumcised! I think you are forgetting that most of the apostles, including Peter, were Jewish. Therefore, they were circumcised, and yet, they were still martyrs.
Lastly, you attempt to use Origen’s statement to claim that there were few martyrs. However, you neglect to admit that Origen’s own father was a martyr. (see here) So, obviously, this cannot be used as a basis of denying that persecution occurred.
27Steven Carr
wrote on 1 May 2007 at 22:06
Norice Katelyn never produced any evidence that Thomas or Andrew wre killed for preaching a resurrection.
Are you claiming Origen was lying when he said that Christian martyrs were ‘easily numbered’?
There are no historical documents of the time.
Clement does not back up your claim that Peter was martyred under Nero.
Clement does not place Paul and Peter in Rome.
Are you claiming Paul was talking nonsense when he said ‘Galatians 6:12 ‘Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.’
Would you have told Paul ‘You idiot. Peter and John have already been circumcised, so circumcision is not an issue’?
As for Clement….
The first person to mention the deaths of Peter and Paul was the Bishop of Rome, Clement.. He wrote in 95 AD in 1 Clement as follows (Chapter 5)
” But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillar s of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours, 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 a notable pattern of patient endurance. ”
As Bishop of Rome, Clement might reasonably be expected to have the best knowledge of what happened to Peter and Paul. Although he is writing thirty years after the events and, being a Christian, might have put a Christian gloss on what happened, he is the only source we have, so we will have to make do with what he wrote.
Note that he never uses the word “martyred”. He never says how Peter and Paul died. He never says that Peter and Paul died in Rome. All he says about Peter’s trials is that he suffered “many labours”. That is hardly detailed knowledge.. The closest Clement ever gets to saying that Peter and Paul were martyred is that they were “contended, even unto death”.
This may mean that Peter and Paul were killed or it may mean only that Peter and Paul were Christians till they died. Just a few lines before, Clement wrote that Joseph had been persecuted “even unto death”. As Clement can hardly mean that Joseph died a martyr’s death, the phrase “even unto death” does not mean that Peter and Paul died a martyr’s death. In fact, Peter and Paul are mentioned in the context of such figures as Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and David, none of whom were martyred.
Surely if Clement , Bishop of Rome, knew that Peter and Paul had been martyred in Rome, he would have written far more and given us far more detail about their deaths.
But there are no details of how Peter and Paul died until 100 years later, when people started making up stories.
28Steven Carr
wrote on 1 May 2007 at 22:14
BTW, Eusebius, History of the Church, is after Tertullian, and is not ‘an historical document of the time’.
Dionysius letter no longer exists. By documents of the time, I thought you were talking about documents which exist. My mistake.
29Steven Carr
wrote on 1 May 2007 at 23:14
KATELYN
According to other historical documents of the time, most of the apostles were martyred.
CARR
‘other historical documents of the time’ turns out to be a letter from Clement, not even mentioning ‘most of the apostles’, and a letter written 100 years later by another Christian.
‘ According to other historical documents of the time, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from plates given to him by an angel’.
That must be true, surely? Look! We have a letter written by a Mormon in about 1930 claiming that Joseph Smith was given scripture to translate by an angel,
What more evidence is needed for Mormonism than a letter written by a Mormon 100 years after the alleged events?
30Lee
wrote on 2 May 2007 at 5:02
Hey Steven,
You make so many logical and historical fallacy’s in your post, that I could write a book correcting them all. I will only deal with a couple.
Are you claiming Paul was talking nonsense when he said ‘Galatians 6:12 ‘Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.
Just like the other guy, your theology is horribly weak. The New Testament is filled with examples of persecution against the followers of Christ because of what they preached, not because they were uncircumcised. Now if you actually read the Bible (which I doubt you’ve done) you would know that the Jews (meaning the Jewish authorities… I have nothing against Jews, and have several Jewish friends) would persecute Christians for whatever reason they could, but it all stemmed from their teaching that Christ was God. I am going to post a fairly long passage for you (I’ll use 3 different posts to do it). I suggest you READ it, as I don’t believe you’ve done before.
You show a classic misunderstanding of Scripture. You cherry pick something that you think agrees with you, and try to interpret the whole rest of Scripture using that one passage, without trying to understand the history recorded, thus taking it out of context. I’ve posted this twice in this thread, but you really need some course (when I posted it for Katelyn, I was not suggesting that she needed courses, but rather that the online courses are interesting): right here.
The next three posts will be my Scriptural example (so that you cannot “cherry pick”) and then I will deal with another one of your mistakes.
31Lee
wrote on 2 May 2007 at 5:03
Acts:Ch 6-8:3
Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch’orus, and Nica’nor, and Ti’mon, and Par’menas, and Nicola’us, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.
And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyre’nians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cili’cia and Asia, arose and disputed with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke. Then they secretly instigated men, who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.
32Lee
wrote on 2 May 2007 at 5:09
Acts Ch 7:1-29
And the high priest said, “Is this so?” And Stephen said: “Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopota’mia, before he lived in Haran, and said to him, `Depart from your land and from your kindred and go into the land which I will show you.’ Then he departed from the land of the Chalde’ans, and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living; yet he gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot’s length, but promised to give it to him in possession and to his posterity after him, though he had no child. And God spoke to this effect, that his posterity would be aliens in a land belonging to others, who would enslave them and ill-treat them four hundred years. `But I will judge the nation which they serve,’ said God, `and after that they shall come out and worship me in this place.’ And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.
“And the patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him,: and rescued him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him governor over Egypt and over all his household. Now there came a famine throughout all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction, and our fathers could find no food. But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent forth our fathers the first time. And at the second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers, and Joseph’s family became known to Pharaoh. And Joseph sent and called to him Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-five souls; and Jacob went down into Egypt. And he died, himself and our fathers, and they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.
“But as the time of the promise drew near, which God had granted to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt till there arose over Egypt another king who had not known Joseph. He dealt craftily with our race and forced our fathers to expose their infants, that they might not be kept alive. At this time Moses was born, and was beautiful before God. And he was brought up for three months in his father’s house; and when he was exposed, Pharaoh’s daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son. And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.
“When he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the sons of Israel. And seeing one of them being wronged, he defended the oppressed man and avenged him by striking the Egyptian. He supposed that his brethren understood that God was giving them deliverance by his hand, but they did not understand. And on the following day he appeared to them as they were quarreling and would have reconciled them, saying, `Men, you are brethren, why do you wrong each other?’ But the man who was wronging his neighbor thrust him aside, saying, `Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? Do you want to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?’ At this retort Moses fled, and became an exile in the land of Mid’ian, where he became the father of two sons.
33Lee
wrote on 2 May 2007 at 5:13
Acts Ch 7:30-60
“Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it he wondered at the sight; and as he drew near to look, the voice of the Lord came, `I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob.’ And Moses trembled and did not dare to look. And the Lord said to him, `Take off the shoes from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. I have surely seen the ill-treatment of my people that are in Egypt and heard their groaning, and I have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to Egypt.’ “This Moses whom they refused, saying, `Who made you a ruler and a judge?’ God sent as both ruler and deliverer by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush. He led them out, having performed wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years. This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, `God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up.’ This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living oracles to give to us.
Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt, saying to Aaron, `Make for us gods to go before us; as for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ And they made a calf in those days, and offered a sacrifice to the idol and rejoiced in the works of their hands. But God turned and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets:
`Did you offer to me slain beasts and sacrifices, forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? And you took up the tent of Moloch, and the star of the god Rephan, the figures which you made to worship; and I will remove you beyond Babylon.’
“Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, even as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations which God thrust out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God and asked leave to find a habitation for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands; as the prophet says,
`Heaven is my throne, and earth my footstool. What house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?’
“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”
Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth against him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.” But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together upon him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
34Lee
wrote on 2 May 2007 at 5:27
Acts 8:1-3
And Saul was consenting to his death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Sama’ria, except the apostles. Devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.
===
Sorry for the long post, but sometimes people who love to cherry-pick Scripture and take passages out of context bring it on themselves
Btw, I have many more examples, so if you really want them, let me know. So as you see, the Jewish authorities persecuted the Church for their teachings in Christ. Somehow I think this is the first time you’ve read these words.
As for Peter being crucified, the Gospel of John records that Peter was killed in this fashion:
John Ch 21:15-18
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”
Lastly, you state:
There were many Christians killed by Nero, who charged them with the fire of Rome. (Although no Christian in the first century AD links any apostles with death under Nero)
All they had to do was deny the lie of setting fire to Rome and they would have been set free.
Um, yeah, just ask the person WHO SET FIRE TO ROME to please oh please not use you as the scape-goat. Works every time!
-Lee
35Lee
wrote on 2 May 2007 at 5:30
I didn’t get the italics line up right in my last post, sorry for any confusion. But I’m sure you can figure it out from context
-Lee
36Steven Carr
wrote on 2 May 2007 at 6:49
Lee continues to claim that Paul was just plain lying when he said that Christians were persecuted on the issue of circumcision, and that Christian leaders avoided persecution by compromising on their beliefs.
Of course, Paul was there, which is why Lee quotes anonymous documents, rather than primary sources.
But you have to love Lee when he claims Stephen was killed for seeing something nobody else present could see.
‘“Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.”’
Stephen actually saw Jesus in Heaven, standing at the right hand of God???
Or did Stephen die for a lie?
37lee
wrote on 2 May 2007 at 7:32
Hi Steven,
In case you didn’t follow the links, they were links to the Bible, not “anonymous” documents. But somehow, I doubt you did that
Again, I don’t believe you’ve actually studied the Bible, as what you state indicates that you’re understanding of it is incredibly weak.
I do not call Paul a liar. Actually, I believe him when he states that he is the least of the Apostles due to the fact that HE persecuted the Church for following Jesus Christ. Again, you take Scripture out of context. Read the whole Acts of the Apostles (you have links now, if you care to follow them), and you will see that Saint Paul himself persecuted the followers of Christ. It really is a great book
Plus, you and I have a fundamental difference in understanding. I believe the Bible, you don’t. The Bible is “divinely inspired”, which meant the authors (including Luke, the author of Acts) had divine inspiration in writing them
Until I am convinced that you’ve read the Bible, I will refrain from criticizing you more
It’s too much like shooting ducks in a barrel.
-Lee
38Steven Carr
wrote on 2 May 2007 at 7:40
Katelyn says we know the Bible is true, because the apostles were persecuted.
How do we know the apostles were persecuted? Because the Bible says so.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because the apostles were persecuted.
How do we know the apostles were persecuted? Because the Bible says so.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because the apostles were persecuted.
How do we know the apostles were persecuted? Because the Bible says so.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because the apostles were persecuted.
How do we know the apostles were persecuted? Because the Bible says so.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because the apostles were persecuted.
How do we know the apostles were persecuted? Because the Bible says so.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because the apostles were persecuted.
How do we know the apostles were persecuted? Because the Bible says so.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because the apostles were persecuted.
How do we know the apostles were persecuted? Because the Bible says so.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because the apostles were persecuted.
How do we know the apostles were persecuted? Because the Bible says so.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because the apostles were persecuted.
How do we know the apostles were persecuted? Because the Bible says so.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because the apostles were persecuted.
How do we know the apostles were persecuted? Because the Bible says so.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because the apostles were persecuted.
How do we know the apostles were persecuted? Because the Bible says so.
39Katelyn Sills
wrote on 2 May 2007 at 19:07
Thank you for your logical, professional, and mature debate skills, Mr. Carr, I’m particularly impressed with your proficient copy and paste function in your earlier comment. But let’s get back to the point of the discussion. I assert that the only reasonable explanation for the disciples’ willingness to die for stating that Jesus had resurrected, is that they actually saw it happen. They were there when Jesus’ death and resurrection occurred, so if it did not actually occur, they would be dying for a lie, which makes no sense.
Now, you are attempting to state that there were absolutely no Christian martyrs killed for their first-hand witness testimony of Jesus’ resurrection. Can you prove this?
No?
If simply one witness was killed for their statement of Jesus’ resurrection, my logical proposition holds true.
You state, “BTW, Eusebius, History of the Church, is after Tertullian, and is not ‘an historical document of the time’. Dionysius letter no longer exists. By documents of the time, I thought you were talking about documents which exist. My mistake. “
There are very few documents which exist at all from thousands of years ago. Thus, any evidence that we have now is a transcription. Eusebius transcribed the letter from Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth. That does not take away any authenticity, nor does it change the fact that the letter was written before Tertullian’s statement.
I could try to provide more evidence of early Christian martyrs, but I can see that you will not be satisfied, even though it is generally accepted that the deaths occurred as I stated. For instance, even DagoodS, who wrote a post here (which you commented on) AGAINST the “die for a lie” argument, states, “I would agree that Peter was a martyr.”
Btw, have you managed to find any historians who agree with you, stating that NO Christian witnesses to Christ’s death and resurrection were killed for their beliefs?
40vichycycl
wrote on 4 May 2007 at 19:52
[i] Again, I don’t believe you’ve actually studied the Bible, as what you state indicates that you’re understanding of it is incredibly weak.[/i]
It is ever the refuge of the lost debate to attack one’s interlocutor rather than his/her argument.
41vichycycl
wrote on 4 May 2007 at 20:00
Your understanding is that ‘you’re’ is possessive.
42JC
wrote on 5 May 2007 at 22:27
vichycl and Mr. Carr,
I would like to offer a couple points for your consideration.
Firstly, you claim Christianity is a circular argument. In one sense it is. So is the argument for skepticism:
The problem here is your worship of “science”, which supersedes your own acknowledgement of logic. You talk about logic, but you refuse to accept its limitations. Logic is only as good as its premises, as Spock learns in “Mirror, Mirror.”
“I don’t believe in miracles.” Therefore,
“Miracles don’t happen.”
Obviously, people do not normally rise from the dead. If this did happen, it would be a miracle.
This is basic Thomism, folks. If you have reliable evidence of something you do not think is reasonable, then you have to rethink your reason. Reason is only the application of certain rules of thought to the evidence presented.
The question is whether the sources (e.g., the Apostles, the Catholic Church) are reliable sources.
The God of Abraham is a “hidden God.” If the Resurrection were caught live on 24/hour cable news, everyone in the world would have to admit it happened.
If that were the case, then everyonw would be compelled to accept God.
If God wanted that, He didn’t have to go to all the trouble; He could have created us as automatons if He’d wanted that.
He created us, Christianity teaches, out of pure love, because He wanted us to have a relationship to Him and to each other. He created us to trust, so He revealed Himself in such a way that still requires faith and trust.
Human life is based upon trust. I trust that the Sun will not go supernova tomorrow. I have been taught that, and I trust it. If I am presented with definitive evidence that the Sun *will* go Nova tomorrow, I’ll have to rethink my trust for those previous sources.
However, in the meantime, I have to work with what I have.
You talk about photographic evidence of evolution. Let me note here that I believe in evolution, as scientific principle. Evolution is taught by Aristotle, for example. What I reject is Darwinism, a philosophical system derived from the scientific evidence of evolution. Darwinism says evolution is a random process.
I believe evolution, like all other scientific discoveries, shows that the universe is an amazing, complex place that follows very clear rules. I believe that those rules imply that there must be a Creator who set those rules in motion.
What you do, however, is say you follow “science” when you are actually following a philosophical system derived in part from what you think is implied by certain scientific knowledge. The *evidence* in favor of evolution says nothing in any way about the possibility of a Creator, or even the truth of the Bible.
And all evidence can be doubted. The first thing I was taught in journalism was that no one is objective, and everyone has a bias. Every reporter manipulates the facts to push an agenda. Cameras are no better than the written word. The lens only sees what the photographer wants it to see.
You condemn “creationists” who set out complex arguments to doubt Darwinism, but you are making the same kinds of arguments about Christianity.
You condemn “conspiracy theorists” yet you advocate your own conspiracy theory about Christiantiy being a conspiracy to achive power by some small group of people.
Your whole premise is that you believe billions of people are deluded, and you are smarter than they are. Talk about delusions of grandeur.
Finally, consider what “good” is achieved by the kind of scietific philosophy you espouse, versus Christianity.
What good does it do to be an atheist, other than to feel superior to the rest of the world and to engage in whatever self-gratifying actions you want.
What positive contributions to history have atheists made? Oh, let’s see, Josef Stalin was an atheist. . . .
Yet Christianity does various things to improve the lives of billions of people on earth, and this is verifiable.
Miracles happen all the time. Most of the time, they are simply dismissed by the skeptics. My father was miraculously healed of a broken spine. The doctors did *several* xtests, told him his spine was broken, and said he might never walk again.
A very holy priest in his home diocese–who, by the way, runs a very successful halfway house for drunks and addicts, and he’s also an exorcist–came in and prayed over him. Dad felt the kind of warm feeling usually mentioned by people who get healed. The X-ray that afternoon showed his spine was fine. THe doctors insisted they must have confused his records with somebody else.
People who are dying of cancer and told the doctors can do nothing will get prayed over and become cancer-free in days.
The evidence is there. You refuse to see it.
43Alina
wrote on 11 December 2007 at 19:39
Of course, you also have to consider the fact that perhaps the martyrs didn’t expect to be persecuted so severely. There are people who are willing to sacrifice everything, including their lives, for a cause; it’s entirely possible that they spread this…story…around in an attempt to spread their new-found religion, and then didn’t expect the repercussions of their actions to be quite so harsh. By that time, it would be too late for them to take back what they said, and if they were fanatic or devoted enough to their cause, they wouldn’t want to. People do extreme things to further their own beliefs and ends, even if it means lying and dying as a result.
44Katelyn Sills
wrote on 12 December 2007 at 19:07
Why would the martyrs not expect to persecuted? The entirely innocent person they followed (Jesus) had been tortured and killed. Why would they be any different?
Furthermore, I think you misunderstood my fundamental point when you say, “People do extreme things to further their own beliefs and ends, even if it means lying and dying as a result.” The early Christians did not believe they met Jesus, they *knew*. You would know whether or not you saw and met someone. It has nothing to do with belief. Thus, the early Christian either were lying or telling the truth. They were not “believing” anything.
So why would someone try to spread what they *know* is a lie? Money? the Christians didn’t get any. Admiration? They were despised. To make life easier? I hardly think being tortured and killed makes life easier.
Therefore, there can be no belief in whether or not you saw and met someone. It is either known to be true or it is known to be false. It makes no sense to spread something you *know* is false, so the resurrection must have been the truth.