The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 582 times

The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #1

Post by boatsnguitars »

Christian clergy and apologists claim that "All the Apostles died instead of recanting their belief in the Resurrection."

Josh McDowell ("More Than A Carpenter, Evidence Demands a Verdict") says,
Even though they were crucified, stoned, stabbed, dragged, skinned and burned, every last apostle of Jesus proclaimed his resurrection until his dying breath, refusing to recant under pressure from the authorities. Therefore, their testimony is trustworthy and the resurrection is true.
Josh McDowell.

This is a demonstrable lie.

Sean McDowell, son of Josh McDowell, says:
If you have followed popular–level arguments for the resurrection (or ever heard a sermon on the apostles), you’ve likely heard this argument. Growing up I heard it regularly and found it quite convincing. After all, why would the apostles of Jesus have died for their faith if it weren’t true?

Yet the question was always in the back of my mind — how do we really know they died as martyrs?
(Note, he was told that lie by his father.)

The claim that all of Jesus' disciples were killed for their unwavering belief in the resurrection is a popular and often-repeated narrative. However, this claim is not entirely accurate and is based on a limited understanding of the available historical evidence.

Firstly, it is important to note that the historical record of the disciples' deaths is sparse and often unreliable. Many of the accounts of the disciples' deaths were written years or even centuries after the events they describe, and some of them contain obvious embellishments and inaccuracies.

Furthermore, there is significant debate among historians about the veracity of these accounts. Some historians argue that the disciples' deaths are well-documented and reliable, while others argue that the available evidence is too thin and contradictory to draw any definitive conclusions.

Even assuming that the accounts of the disciples' deaths are accurate, it is not clear that they were all killed specifically because of their belief in the resurrection. Many of the disciples lived and died in relative obscurity, and there is little or no historical record of how or why they died.

For example, we know almost nothing about the deaths of most of the disciples, including James the Less, Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot. The accounts of the deaths of Peter and Paul are somewhat more reliable, but they provide no evidence that these disciples were specifically targeted for their belief in the resurrection.

Moreover, it is worth noting that many religious figures throughout history have been persecuted and even killed for their beliefs. The fact that the disciples were killed for their beliefs does not necessarily make those beliefs true, nor does it provide any evidence for the resurrection itself.

In conclusion, while it is certainly possible that some or all of the disciples were killed for their beliefs, it is far from clear that this is the case. Furthermore, even if the accounts of the disciples' deaths are accurate, they do not provide any evidence for the resurrection itself. Therefore, the claim that the disciples were all killed for their belief in the resurrection is a problematic and oversimplified narrative that should be approached with caution.

1. To what extent do the deaths of the apostles prove the veracity of the resurrection story?
2. Can we trust the accounts of the apostles' deaths as historically accurate, or are they subject to bias and myth-making?
3. Is it possible for someone to be so convinced of a belief that they are willing to die for it, even if the belief is not true?
4. How do we reconcile the apostles' willingness to die for their belief in the resurrection with similar accounts of martyrs in other religions?
5. Do contemporary Christians have a responsibility to question the historical accuracy of their religious texts and teachings, or is faith sufficient?
6. If the clergy is lying so easily about this, what are we to believe about their other claims?
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5755
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #21

Post by The Tanager »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:29 pmYou are, because it's not about you and what claim you are making but about 'the disciples did not die for a lie. If YOU say that they didn't die (were martyred) you are shifting your goalpopsts from the Christian claim, as well as from what I was answering.
No, from the outset I was admitting that some Christians claim this, but that many do not. I even continued the quote (although I just summarized it) that bng brought into this from Sean McDowell to back that up. My claim was that it is more charitable to deal with Sean McDowell’s claim than Josh McDowell’s because it is the more defensible claim in this area. People can continue to speak about what I think is the less defensible claim, but they have no right to say I’m moving the goalpost. I simply said those are goalposts, but defeating these other goalposts would be the greater act. You obviously didn’t understand that and thought I was addressing the first goalposts, so that makes more sense now why you thought I was moving the goalposts.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:29 pmNo, that is the Christian claim, the apologetic viewpoint and what you say, but where is the evidence outside Bibleclaims that the disciples were persecuted (or martyred) because they would not deny that they had seen Jesus walking about after they had seen him dead? Remember the gospels themselves make it clear that they never saw him die. So you are beaten already. But what can you even say rather than Christian dogma to show for what reason the disciples were persecuted?
You agree that Jews persecuted Christians. As to finding out why, why should we not use the evidence we have? Just because it was later collected into the Bible? Those are the historical documents we have of this time. Obviously, we don’t just trust everything they say, but they do show us what the earliest Christian message was. It’s not about gaining authority, but a resurrected Jesus, which does threaten the Jewish religious system. Christians weren’t taking over Jewish leadership roles and their threat to the Jewish authority over individuals was their message, which was about the resurrected Jesus. If they are going to be persecuted, it’s safe to assume it was for what they were teaching.

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #22

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:54 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:29 pmYou are, because it's not about you and what claim you are making but about 'the disciples did not die for a lie. If YOU say that they didn't die (were martyred) you are shifting your goalpopsts from the Christian claim, as well as from what I was answering.
No, from the outset I was admitting that some Christians claim this, but that many do not. I even continued the quote (although I just summarized it) that bng brought into this from Sean McDowell to back that up. My claim was that it is more charitable to deal with Sean McDowell’s claim than Josh McDowell’s because it is the more defensible claim in this area. People can continue to speak about what I think is the less defensible claim, but they have no right to say I’m moving the goalpost. I simply said those are goalposts, but defeating these other goalposts would be the greater act. You obviously didn’t understand that and thought I was addressing the first goalposts, so that makes more sense now why you thought I was moving the goalposts.
But all along it's been 'The disciples would not die for a lie, and specifically referencing the martyrdom claims. 'The disciples died for the Rez'. is the topic. You shifted the goalposts.

If you want to shift to persecution as distinct from martyrdom, we'll do it - indeed we have done it, but it was not the original claim that was being challenged. You don't get to accuse me of shifting it.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 2:29 pmNo, that is the Christian claim, the apologetic viewpoint and what you say, but where is the evidence outside Bibleclaims that the disciples were persecuted (or martyred) because they would not deny that they had seen Jesus walking about after they had seen him dead? Remember the gospels themselves make it clear that they never saw him die. So you are beaten already. But what can you even say rather than Christian dogma to show for what reason the disciples were persecuted?
You agree that Jews persecuted Christians. As to finding out why, why should we not use the evidence we have? Just because it was later collected into the Bible? Those are the historical documents we have of this time. Obviously, we don’t just trust everything they say, but they do show us what the earliest Christian message was. It’s not about gaining authority, but a resurrected Jesus, which does threaten the Jewish religious system. Christians weren’t taking over Jewish leadership roles and their threat to the Jewish authority over individuals was their message, which was about the resurrected Jesus. If they are going to be persecuted, it’s safe to assume it was for what they were teaching.
Yes, if we credit Paul who at least claims that he went after Christians. Your argument about the Bible shows why we can't use it - if it was based on the early Christian belief in the resurrection, then of course hat is going to reflect the belief that the persecutions were because of the resurrection - claim. So you are really using the claim as evidence for the claim, and even then it is not clear (until you show it :D ) that was the reason for the persecution. You assume it because the Christians were persecuted, but even then, not originally or the resurrection, but for atheism (in the Roman view) and preaching against the mosaic law. When the Christian claim that Jesus was god became known, of course Jews rejected that, but you have more to do to show that was the reason Paul on behalf of the Sanhedrin persecuted the Disciples. You could refute me here. if you can even find Bile - quotes that say so. Off you go.

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5755
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #23

Post by The Tanager »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 3:44 pmBut all along it's been 'The disciples would not die for a lie, and specifically referencing the martyrdom claims. 'The disciples died for the Rez'. is the topic. You shifted the goalposts.

If you want to shift to persecution as distinct from martyrdom, we'll do it - indeed we have done it, but it was not the original claim that was being challenged. You don't get to accuse me of shifting it.
Let me try this again. I admitted, from the beginning, that I was offering a different argument (because that is what Sean McDowell said in the quote bng brought up in the OP). I was very openly shifting the goalposts there. I thought you read that, responded with me, and then after more response from me then claimed that I shifted the goalposts concerning what I was talking about all along. Since you didn’t catch my open shift at the beginning, I was taking back my claim that you were shifting things back on me.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 3:44 pmYes, if we credit Paul who at least claims that he went after Christians. Your argument about the Bible shows why we can't use it - if it was based on the early Christian belief in the resurrection, then of course hat is going to reflect the belief that the persecutions were because of the resurrection - claim. So you are really using the claim as evidence for the claim, and even then it is not clear (until you show it ) that was the reason for the persecution.
We can’t assume that they are lying about why the persecution happened. The only written evidence we have supports that is why the persecution was happening. There is no reason to think that is a lie. It fits with the Jewish establishment’s authority being challenged in ways that it wasn’t challenged by other messianic sects. The claimed resurrection is the key difference. It also fits with how that was the central message of Christians, so if they are going to be persecuted for having their sect, it’s going to probably be about that. Even if the Jews persecuted for other reasons, in order for the Christians to recant, they’d be recanting their belief in the resurrected Messiah.

User avatar
The Nice Centurion
Guru
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 107 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #24

Post by The Nice Centurion »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 12:33 pm
The Tanager wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 9:24 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:49 amNo, no, no, That is not the argument. It is what the Bible apologists would like the argument to be - either the 12 (or 11, rather) saw the death on the cross (1) and Jesus alive afterwards and were so sure that Jesus had risen that they suffered death rather than deny it, or they lied about the whole thing and maintained the lie even through martyrdom (which would be hard to believe).

No. The problem is that there is no valid evidence that the disciples were put on any such spot and maintained the resurrection in the face of threats. The burden of proof has been pushed back to the Believers to show that the claim that the disciples died rather than recant is actually true.

I was anticipating 'known persecution', but that is not the same thing. Jesus was not executed because he said he'd seen someone resurrected. He was executed either because he threatened the authority of the 'teachers of the law' or of the Romans, or both. That is why the disciples were 'persecuted', not because they maintained the resurrection. Burden of proof is on you to show that is what the 'persecution' was about.

cue 'Paul beaten three times for preaching Christ crucified'. But as I recall, it was 'the Jews' doing that, because Paul was preaching against the Mosaic law, not because of preaching resurrection, aside that it was the Gospel resurrection Paul was preaching at all, but the resurrection of Jesus' spirit. But we'll see where we go on that.

(1) which they didn't - they didn't even watch the crucifixion.
No, the Christian argument is what Christians actually argue. Some Christians argue about death. I (and other Christians) think that argument is not well supported (which, of course, doesn't mean they didn't die for their faith, it's just that we don't have good evidence they did). I (and other Christians) think that claims of dying for a lie aren't even needed, but that not recanting in the face of persecution supports the resurrection theory by being a strong mark against the "apostles' lied" theory. We know the earliest Christians were persecuted (by Jews and then Romans later). The Jewish persecution would obviously center on Jesus as the Messiah, which the earliest Christians clearly and centrally preached as risen, so recantation would involve recanting that Jesus' rose from the dead. We know the message was still spread in spite of that. We have no evidence of recantations, which we would expect. You'd expect to have Christians writing about the apostles who betrayed them by recanting. We don't have any evidence of that. Thus, the "apostles' lied" theory is weakened.
Shifting the goalposts doesn't help your case. It is true that we have no evidence of disciples recanting anything, but what evidence do you have that pressure was being put on them to deny the resurrection? Not even James the greater is described as having Herod Agrippa put the sword to his throat and "Deny the resurrection or else". Aside that I don't trust Acts, we don't know the reason Herod Agrippa supposedly killed him. You sidestep my counter that it may all be because of a threat to authority, not about a resurrection - claim that frankly the Roman governors and the Jews would hardly care about at the time by insisting that the persecution was about Jesus' messiahship and that based on the resurrection and THAT based on assuming that was a solid body resurrection. That's three assumptions that you make and I'd like to know where you validate that.

Paul says he persecuted the church. He doesn't say why. He says the Jews persecuted him. That was as likely to be because he preached against Jewish Law, rather than resurrection - claims which I doubt they cared about. I have to say that the motivations in the gospels are denied by me because I can show the gospels were written by Christians and non -Jewish ones on the evidence, not even by converted Jews. They are not in fact, evidence that the persecution of the disciples (which Paul confirms) was because they would not deny that they saw Jesus' body walking after they had seen him die, which in fact they did not according to the gospels. They were in hiding.

Cue: 'What other explanation for the empty tomb?'
The tomb emptied itself ?

( I am sure this is the first time someone suggested that explanation. )
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again🐟

"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon❗"

"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates❗"

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #25

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 6:29 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 3:44 pmBut all along it's been 'The disciples would not die for a lie, and specifically referencing the martyrdom claims. 'The disciples died for the Rez'. is the topic. You shifted the goalposts.

If you want to shift to persecution as distinct from martyrdom, we'll do it - indeed we have done it, but it was not the original claim that was being challenged. You don't get to accuse me of shifting it.
Let me try this again. I admitted, from the beginning, that I was offering a different argument (because that is what Sean McDowell said in the quote bng brought up in the OP). I was very openly shifting the goalposts there. I thought you read that, responded with me, and then after more response from me then claimed that I shifted the goalposts concerning what I was talking about all along. Since you didn’t catch my open shift at the beginning, I was taking back my claim that you were shifting things back on me.
Ok. The point is, it is a different argument from martyrdom rather than saying they did not see the resurrection or rather the risen Jesus after they have been told he was dead (you see the looming problem?) to the persecution because they maintained the resurrection as reported in the gospels. And I think it fair to ask (again) do you then concede that 'would not die for a lie' is not supported by any real evidence, before we slip onto a different argument?

As I say, we don't know why they were persecuted (I'm asking you to give the evidence for that) and we don't know the resurrection that Paul preached - and which I am at least crediting the disciples believed - was the same as in the gospels.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Aug 30, 2023 3:44 pmYes, if we credit Paul who at least claims that he went after Christians. Your argument about the Bible shows why we can't use it - if it was based on the early Christian belief in the resurrection, then of course hat is going to reflect the belief that the persecutions were because of the resurrection - claim. So you are really using the claim as evidence for the claim, and even then it is not clear (until you show it ) that was the reason for the persecution.
We can’t assume that they are lying about why the persecution happened. The only written evidence we have supports that is why the persecution was happening. There is no reason to think that is a lie. It fits with the Jewish establishment’s authority being challenged in ways that it wasn’t challenged by other messianic sects. The claimed resurrection is the key difference. It also fits with how that was the central message of Christians, so if they are going to be persecuted for having their sect, it’s going to probably be about that. Even if the Jews persecuted for other reasons, in order for the Christians to recant, they’d be recanting their belief in the resurrected Messiah.
There is very good reason to suppose that the events and ethos reported in the gospels is not true. If it was written by Greek Christians who were making up contradictory stories, and most notably about what happened at the resurrection. Now this, I accept, is my argument rather that mainstream apologists let alone Bible apologists, but I am willing to argue that there is no good reason to credit the resurrection - stories, nor Paul in I Corinthians as referring to those stories in his talk of the resurrection. It is not my fault if the Experts are too accepting of the Bibleclaim without question.

Now. that said, suppose you explain where the gospels (or any other valid source) suggest that the disciples were persecuted in an effort to get them to recant the resurrection rather than for some other reason, given that I contest the reliability or indeed veracity of the gospels or Acts, and persecution rather than deny a lie is NOT the common argument "Disciples would not die for a lie" but is a different one. If you can show evidence the persecution was o get them to dent they say the dead (so they believed) Jesus alive and walking as the gospels show, then I will credit that argument, whether yours, McDowell's or anybody else's.

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5755
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #26

Post by The Tanager »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 10:00 amAnd I think it fair to ask (again) do you then concede that 'would not die for a lie' is not supported by any real evidence, before we slip onto a different argument?
As I’ve already stated in this thread, at least twice, “would not die for a lie” is not supported (or refuted) by any real evidence.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 10:00 amAs I say, we don't know why they were persecuted (I'm asking you to give the evidence for that) and we don't know the resurrection that Paul preached - and which I am at least crediting the disciples believed - was the same as in the gospels.
We have good reason to believe why they were persecuted because (!) of the Biblical documents which give the reason as their pronouncement of Jesus’ resurrection as central to everything as well as general knowledge about (2a) Christians being persecuted and (2b) what their movement was focused on, namely, Jesus’ resurrection, and (2c) how this would challenge the authority of the Jewish leaders to where they would want to persecute Christians.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 10:00 amThere is very good reason to suppose that the events and ethos reported in the gospels is not true. If it was written by Greek Christians who were making up contradictory stories, and most notably about what happened at the resurrection. Now this, I accept, is my argument rather that mainstream apologists let alone Bible apologists, but I am willing to argue that there is no good reason to credit the resurrection - stories, nor Paul in I Corinthians as referring to those stories in his talk of the resurrection. It is not my fault if the Experts are too accepting of the Bibleclaim without question.
Or you could just be wrong. I’ve heard your case on this and think it is weak. You disagree and think my case is weak. I’m not sure there is anything new there for us to consider of each other’s view.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 10:00 amNow. that said, suppose you explain where the gospels (or any other valid source) suggest that the disciples were persecuted in an effort to get them to recant the resurrection rather than for some other reason, given that I contest the reliability or indeed veracity of the gospels or Acts, and persecution rather than deny a lie is NOT the common argument "Disciples would not die for a lie" but is a different one. If you can show evidence the persecution was o get them to dent they say the dead (so they believed) Jesus alive and walking as the gospels show, then I will credit that argument, whether yours, McDowell's or anybody else's.
This comes across a bit choppy. I’m not sure if you want me to share the Biblical documents’ reasons or not. You say “suppose you explain” but also talk of how you contest those documents. Can you clarify?

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #27

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Well, sorry, it sems I lost track of the discussion, too.

You began:
Third, Josh McDowell also goes on to say that it’s not about them dying as martyrs. He writes “What is critical is their willingness to suffer for their faith and the lack of a contrary story that any of them recanted.” The earliest Christians were persecuted by Jewish leaders, as well as later by Rome sporadically. And some seem to even be martyred for their beliefs. That belief centers on the resurrection, so, yes, being persecuted for being a Christian would connect back to being persecuted for believing in the resurrection.

But I responded that this was not the discussion which was the claim the disciples died rather than recant the resurrection, or that they were even persecuted for that reason.

You post above
We have good reason to believe why they were persecuted because (!) of the Biblical documents which give the reason as their pronouncement of Jesus’ resurrection as central to everything as well as general knowledge about (2a) Christians being persecuted and (2b) what their movement was focused on, namely, Jesus’ resurrection, and (2c) how this would challenge the authority of the Jewish leaders to where they would want to persecute Christians.
Now that's what I call 'choppy'. It is close to evasive, I'm afraid. But it's fine for me O:) as trying to pass off the central claim of resurrection in Christianity and the fact that (Paul indicates) the early Christians were persecuted, and you try to make one the reason for the other with actually no real evidence for it than assumption that is convenient for you.

But what other reason for the persecution could there be, and isn't the solid body resurrection the credible story? No, and I have argued that above and the best you seem to be able to do is dismiss it as 'weak' without even considering it. Whether you ignored it before or ignore it now.

It is the point is arguing gospel unreliability as to events of the mindset of the gospels as Christian rather than Jewish. It has to be invalid as a reason to credit the resurrection as solid body (Paul I Cor suggests visionary) and the evidence I gave shows the gospels are neither reliable nor reflecting the thought of the disciples, who (Paul indicates) were Jews, and observant Jews. Even Acts 21 (James covering up for Paul making him look Observant) seems to have gathered that.

What more you got? Trying to shift the burden of proof it seems. Rather than you supporting the peripheral claim 'the disciples would not put up with persecution for a lie', you try to get me explaining something: "but also talk of how you contest those documents. Can you clarify?"

Dude, you know, as you dismiss them as 'weak' above rather than contest them, and I have given reasons why the gospels are not to be trusted, even if we could entertain you trying to make the resurrection claim the reason for the pe,rsecution, which is 'weak' as (like Lord liar or lunatic' :) there are other options. As I said, Jesus was not killed because he claimed resurrection but because (according to the gospels) he threatened the authority to the teachers of the law. Why is not that a valid Gospel based reason to say why the disciples were 'persecuted'?

I'd say you have some evidence to find, if you even get started rather than trying to pick holes in the evidence i presented.

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5755
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #28

Post by The Tanager »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 12:57 pmNow that's what I call 'choppy'. It is close to evasive, I'm afraid. But it's fine for me as trying to pass of the central claim of resurrection in Christianity and the fact that (Paul indicates) the early Christians were persecuted, and you try to make one the reson for the other wiht actually no real evidence.
By “choppy” I simply meant I couldn’t follow exactly what your point was, and it could have been my fault for not seeing it clearly. A “choppy” claim could not be analyzed at all, in order to call it evasive or whatever.

I’ve shared why I think the most reasonable explanation, given the Biblical writings and general evidence we do have, would be that claims of resurrection were central to their persecution. I see no other explanation as a good one. You disagree. With nothing to add by either of us, we move on.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 12:57 pmBut what othr rason for the persecution could there be, and isn't the solid body resurrection the credibl;e story? No, and I have argued that above and the best you seem to be able to do is dismiss it without even considering it. Whether you ignored it before or ignore it now.
That is definitely my fault. I didn’t focus on it the first time, as I felt there were more pressing disagreements. I didn’t focus on it the second time out of sheer forgetfulness. I had it in mind to respond to it and then plumb forgot to. I believe you claimed it wasn’t a solid body, but I don’t remember seeing your argument. Could you either point me to that post, quote it again, or provide the support for your opinion there?
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 12:57 pmIt is the point is arguing gospel unreliability as to events of the mindset of the gospels as Christian rather than Jewish. It has to be invalid as a reason to credit the resurrection as solid body (Paul I cor suggests visionary) and the evidence I gave shows the gospels are neither reliable nor reflecting the thought of the disciples, who (Paul indicate) were Jews and observant Jews. Even Acts seems to have gathered that.
I don’t see Paul believing in a non-bodily resurrection, but I’ll look at your case. I also may be getting threads mixed up, but I don’t remember you offering evidence that shows the gospels are unreliable here (maybe I felt it off-topic of our posts at the time?), but you could point me back to that, restate it or share it.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 12:57 pmWhat more you got? Trying to shift the burden of proof it seems. Rather than you supporting the peripheral claim 'the disciples would not put up with persecution for a lie' you try to get me explaining something "but also talk of how you contest those documents. Can you clarify?"
No, I feel I did carry my burden, even if poorly so in your mind. My last comment last post was about how I wasn’t understanding what you were saying in what I quoted above that response. I was confused by you saying “suppose you explain where the gospels…suggest that the disciples were persecuted in an effort to get them to recant the resurrection…given that I contest the reliability or indeed veracity of the gospels or Acts…”. I’m not sure if you are questioning that the gospels portray the centrality of the resurrection to the persecution or if you are saying don’t waste our time since they are completely unreliable anyway. I asked for clarification.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 12:57 pmAs I said, Jesus was not killed because he claimed resurrection but because (according to the gospels) he threatened the authority to the teachers of the law. Why is not that a valid Gospel based reason to say why the disciples were 'persecuted'?
According to the Gospels, Jesus threatened the authority of the teachers of the law in large part because he claimed to be God. Of course it wasn’t for talking about a resurrection that hadn’t happened yet. Christians, after the resurrection, didn’t claim to be God, but that Jesus was God and resurrected as their central message. That still threatened the leader’s authority.

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #29

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 1:51 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 12:57 pmNow that's what I call 'choppy'. It is close to evasive, I'm afraid. But it's fine for me as trying to pass of the central claim of resurrection in Christianity and the fact that (Paul indicates) the early Christians were persecuted, and you try to make one the reson for the other wiht actually no real evidence.
By “choppy” I simply meant I couldn’t follow exactly what your point was, and it could have been my fault for not seeing it clearly. A “choppy” claim could not be analyzed at all, in order to call it evasive or whatever.

I’ve shared why I think the most reasonable explanation, given the Biblical writings and general evidence we do have, would be that claims of resurrection were central to their persecution. I see no other explanation as a good one. You disagree. With nothing to add by either of us, we move on.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 12:57 pmBut what othr rason for the persecution could there be, and isn't the solid body resurrection the credibl;e story? No, and I have argued that above and the best you seem to be able to do is dismiss it without even considering it. Whether you ignored it before or ignore it now.
That is definitely my fault. I didn’t focus on it the first time, as I felt there were more pressing disagreements. I didn’t focus on it the second time out of sheer forgetfulness. I had it in mind to respond to it and then plumb forgot to. I believe you claimed it wasn’t a solid body, but I don’t remember seeing your argument. Could you either point me to that post, quote it again, or provide the support for your opinion there?
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 12:57 pmIt is the point is arguing gospel unreliability as to events of the mindset of the gospels as Christian rather than Jewish. It has to be invalid as a reason to credit the resurrection as solid body (Paul I cor suggests visionary) and the evidence I gave shows the gospels are neither reliable nor reflecting the thought of the disciples, who (Paul indicate) were Jews and observant Jews. Even Acts seems to have gathered that.
I don’t see Paul believing in a non-bodily resurrection, but I’ll look at your case. I also may be getting threads mixed up, but I don’t remember you offering evidence that shows the gospels are unreliable here (maybe I felt it off-topic of our posts at the time?), but you could point me back to that, restate it or share it.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 12:57 pmWhat more you got? Trying to shift the burden of proof it seems. Rather than you supporting the peripheral claim 'the disciples would not put up with persecution for a lie' you try to get me explaining something "but also talk of how you contest those documents. Can you clarify?"
No, I feel I did carry my burden, even if poorly so in your mind. My last comment last post was about how I wasn’t understanding what you were saying in what I quoted above that response. I was confused by you saying “suppose you explain where the gospels…suggest that the disciples were persecuted in an effort to get them to recant the resurrection…given that I contest the reliability or indeed veracity of the gospels or Acts…”. I’m not sure if you are questioning that the gospels portray the centrality of the resurrection to the persecution or if you are saying don’t waste our time since they are completely unreliable anyway. I asked for clarification.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 12:57 pmAs I said, Jesus was not killed because he claimed resurrection but because (according to the gospels) he threatened the authority to the teachers of the law. Why is not that a valid Gospel based reason to say why the disciples were 'persecuted'?
According to the Gospels, Jesus threatened the authority of the teachers of the law in large part because he claimed to be God. Of course it wasn’t for talking about a resurrection that hadn’t happened yet. Christians, after the resurrection, didn’t claim to be God, but that Jesus was God and resurrected as their central message. That still threatened the leader’s authority.
Well, let's see what we can salvage here and move on. Disciples died rather than deny resurrection agreed to be without validation, which is splendid. Disciples persecuted (which Paul tells us he did) rather than deny the resurrection assumes that was why tey were persecuted, and just because the resurrection became the basis of Christianity does not make that the only option for why the teachers of the law went after the disciples.

Now here is where I make the case that we can't trust the gospels for the reasons I set out (as a tiny sample) and that has two prongs - the resurrection as depicted in the gospels did not happen, as they contradict, and I Cor shows that it was different and arguable a mental vision anyway; it surely was for Paul, and that the High Priests wouldn't care anyway. If Jesus was out of the way, they didn't care whether his spirit had ascended or not. I do not credit that the reason that Paul helped the Sanhedrin target the Christians was because they preached Jesus' resurrection, though that was likely the reason he converted.

Now, rather than dismiss it as 'weak' or 'they wrote differently back then' you may either produce evidence that preaching the resurrection was the reason for the Pauline-Sanhedrin persecution (the later one in the Roman empire is later and irrelevant) or make it clear that your case is that because the resurrection is the basis of Christianity it also had to be the basis of the Priestly persecutions. This is a convenient assumption and may even seem obvious to you, but it has no real evidential basis. To quote some other apologists: "It does not say so in the Bible".

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5755
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #30

Post by The Tanager »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:28 pm Disciples persecuted (which Paul tells us he did) rather than deny the resurrection assumes that was why tey were persecuted, and just because the resurrection became the basis of Christianity does not make that the only option for why the teachers of the law went after the disciples.
I didn’t say it was the only option, but the most reasonable option without a direct record of “Hey, I’m persecuting you because X”.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Aug 31, 2023 2:28 pmNow here is where I make the case that we can't trust the gospels for the reasons I set out (as a tiny sample) and that has two prongs - the resurrection as depicted in the gospels did not happen, as they contradict, and I Cor shows that it was different and arguable a mental vision anyway; it surely was for Paul, and that the High Priests wouldn't care anyway. If Jesus was out of the way, they didn't care whether his spirit had ascended or not. I do not credit that the reason that Paul helped the Sanhedrin target the Christians was because they preached Jesus' resurrection, though that was likely the reason he converted.

Now, rather than dismiss it as 'weak' or 'they wrote differently back then' you may either produce evidence that preaching the resurrection was the reason for the Pauline-Sanhedrin persecution (the later one in the Roman empire is later and irrelevant) or make it clear that your case is that because the resurrection is the basis of Christianity it also had to be the basis of the Priestly persecutions. This is a convenient assumption and may even seem obvious to you, but it has no real evidential basis. To quote some other apologists: "It does not say so in the Bible".
First, I have never responded to an actual case by just saying it is weak. If one summarizes their conclusions or points back to a previous conversation we’ve personally had, then I may say that I thought it weak without going through all the reasons I thought so (while usually also saying my opponent found my case weak, so it’s not perjorative or empty rhetoric). If the post I’m responding to summarizes their conclusion, not giving the reasons, that’s perfectly fair. Anytime I’ve said reasons directly given for a case are weak, I’ve shared why I think so.

Second, the most recent thing I wrote that “they wrote differently back then” was a valid point about Matthew having Jesus quote the Septuagint because that was accepted practice with quotes back then. If you disagree, then explain why instead of just dismissing it as being dismissive.

Now, to your case. Even if there are contradictions, this does not call into question the claims of resurrection by the disciples and it doesn’t disprove that the resurrection happened. All it would show is that there was some disagreement on some surrounding details unless you can show those details are true…not just possible…contradictions and that they are very important to the truth of the event.

As to 1 Corinthians showing Paul didn’t believe in a bodily resurrection, I don’t remember you giving a case of that here, which makes it just a claim. We’ve discussed it briefly elsewhere, I believe, and I wasn’t convinced then. Saying it’s arguably not a bodily resurrection isn’t good enough, you’ve got to show it’s the most reasonable view to take.

As to whether it says so in the Bible, regarding why persecution happened, I think it is clearly connected to the resurrection. Most directly so in the beginning chapters of Acts. In Acts 3, Peter is talking about Jesus’ death and resurrection and what Jesus means for people and Peter and John are jailed by the Jewish leaders for their message and told to stop spreading that message. In Acts 5, Peter has the same focus in his message before the council, that Jesus was killed, resurrected, and exalted to God’s right hand as founder and savior. The council wants to execute them but one pharisee talks them down, although they still beat Peter and John. In Paul’s talk in Acts 26, he says he is being persecuted because of his hope in God’s promise that God raises the dead (v. 8). He goes on to say the Jews seized him and his message was nothing except Jesus’ persecution and resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul again gives the gospel, focused on Jesus’ death and resurrection and talks about how he had persecuted the church for that message. In Galatians 5:11, Paul talks about how he isn’t being persecuted for preaching circumcision but the offense of the cross. In Galatians 6:12, Paul talks of people preaching circumcision to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.

Post Reply