Gospel truth – or a grand conspiracy?

[Easyrider]

If the Gospels and Epistle writers were not being truthful in their depictions of Jesus Christ as a miracle worker, the Jewish Messiah, the Son of God, the resurrected Savior, and so on, then I think someone needs to provide a compelling motive, backed up by some sort of credible evidence, as to why some nine or so different New Testament authors shared such a common vision? What was their motive for a non-Biblical Jesus, considering their lives were on the line either way, and since such a pack of (alleged) lies should be easily refuted by others who knew a “different” Jesus? Why the “grand conspiracy” if Jesus is not who they claimed?

So, two things are asked for here: (1) A credible motive for a non-Biblical Jesus that takes into account the authors putting their lives on the line for an alleged lie (or whatever), and (2) Some kind of credible evidence to support that theory.

[Lotan]

I think it is a fair time to point out that the Jesus seminar scholars do have a certain bias, in that they all believe (like you have stated in the past Lotan) that Gospel of Thomas is relevant to the "real Jesus" and of a early date, this was the mandate of their research and the subject of their book.

Hi YB,
Let me be the first to say that every single human being on earth is biased!

The Gospel of Thomas is relevant to a discussion of Jesus even if it is of a later date. The similarity of some of it’s contents to the canonical gospels is useful for comparison if nothing else. I don’t recall reading that all of the JS fellows shared the opinion that gThomas is early, is that right? I know that at least some of them were conservatives. I would speculate that not many conservatives would have participated since the idea of questioning the veracity of the bible is anathema to them in the first place, but I don't know that for a fact.

Throwing out any scholar because of a bias for thier position shouldn't outweigh the evidence.

Amen! Here’s a nice bit from Bible.org – The Making of a Good Christian Scholar…

"At bottom, I think there are three different kinds of biblical scholars:
1. Those who are out to destroy the faith. These almost always came from an evangelical or fundamentalist background, and they feel that they were deceived in their early training. (And many times they were: the professors would be threatened by their irreverent questions, and would give them glib answers or a theological tongue-lashing.) The rest of their lives becomes an apologetic for their moment of "wising up"! But they soon fall into the very patterns of thinking that they so eschewed in undergraduate studies: they tend to close doors on any real evidence, just as many evangelicals do too, because such evidence doesn’t fit their perceptions of the world.
2. Those who are out to defend the faith, or at least a particular form of the faith, at all costs. These, too, are dangerous, since they are not primarily interested in truth. They are just as dangerous as their liberal counterparts, because their methods are the same and because they, too, are not moved by the incarnation as a motivation and method for their study. Martin Hengel calls both of these groups “radical fundamentalists.” The conclusions are already made; the data now just need to be manipulated to justify such conclusions. Just because the results might be what the orthodox agree with does not justify the means by which those results were obtained.1 Frankly, this group is where many conservative seminary graduates in years past started out. If they were smart enough to go on to doctoral work, they often ended up in camp #1. Very sad, but also predictable: their method, in both instances, was the same: results drive inquiry even to the point of skewing the data.
3. Those who are truly liberal in the best sense of the word. That is, they examine the data and pursue truth, regardless of where it leads. They are even-handed, and motivated by a desire to know, even if the results are not what they expected or hoped for. This is true scholarship, and it is honoring to Christ because it intuitively recognizes that in the incarnation God not only invites us, he also requires us, to investigate the facts. God, in fact, is telling us to be critical of the Bible! Acts 17.11 is a good model for us here. Critical, yes; but not with a critical spirit."

I'll take door #3 please. Of course I would omit the qualifier "Christian" as a potential source of bias.

That being said, because the gnostics used John doesn't verify all accounts of a pro-gnostic Historical Jesus. Each piece of evidence needs to support the position on both sides, the reality is that there is always contrary "evidence" and biases take over.

I’m not trying to argue that gJohn is Gnostic actually, only that some elements common to Gnosticism were incorporated into it.

[Easyrider]

Certainly the apologetic nature of the Book of Acts disqualifies it as an objective source of historical information.

What you deem apologetic is considered historical by others. It certainly wasn’t “Canon” at the time.

Farrell Till is clearly less impressed with McBirnie's 'evidence'….

Farrell Till is a dedicated anti-Christian hack who makes all kinds of outrageous claims. I wouldn’t trust him with my pet Airdale.

"Usage", get it? As in other authors used portions of gJohn in their own writings.

So what does that prove, even if it’s correct? Was what they quoted from John “Gnostic,” and if so what evidence is there for that, besides their own interpretations? If John went to witness to the Greeks and others, as he did, then it’s not surprising that they would quote him. The earliest church fathers, such as Irenaeus (a disciple of Polycarp) attesting about Polycarp’s (Polycarp, a disciple of John) affirmation about John’s authorship, provides the kind of evidence one would expect to see if John were indeed the author. Then you have Clement of Alexandria, and later other church fathers attesting to John’s authorship.

Historians don't take the supernatural claims of any other writings seriously, so I see no reason why the Bible should be an exception.

You mean secular historians, or what? Isn’t this an evidence on their part of a pre-conceived, anti-supernatural bias which cannot be validated by science?

Anyway, like I said, you have sources that you are enamored with, and so do others.

Cheers…

[juliod]

You mean secular historians, or what?

Is there any other kind?

What would a "religious historian" be like? Certainly not the same thing as a "historian of religion".

Would it be like the "creation scientists" who have to sign doctrinal oaths?

Does that appear to you as a good way to work towards the truth?

DanZ

[Easyrider]

You mean secular historians, or what?

Is there any other kind?

What would a "religious historian" be like? Certainly not the same thing as a "historian of religion".

Would it be like the "creation scientists" who have to sign doctrinal oaths?

Does that appear to you as a good way to work towards the truth?

DanZ

Yes, there are others besides secularists who are excellent historians. It looks like you assume people can't be people of faith without lying?

[Lotan]

What you deem apologetic is considered historical by others.

And? Some people think the pyramids were built by aliens. Big deal!
That crazy wild-eyed liberal F.F. Bruce had this to say...

"It is necessary, then, to look for an appropriate life-setting for a work which strikes the apologetic note in just this way."

"So far as the Neronian persecution is concerned, even Tacitus (no friend to Christians) admits that it was the action of one man's malignity rather than an expression of public policy, and the official reprobation of Nero's memory and actions at his death could have been held to cover his persecution of the Christians of Rome. So Luke's recording of favorable judgments which had been passed on Christianity by other Roman authorities might have been intended to suggest that Nero's anti-Christian activity was an irresponsible and criminal attack by that now excrated ruler on a movement whose innocence had been amply attested by many worthier representatives of Roman power."

Again, whether Paul's execution was or was not an incident in the Neronian persecution, the fact that it is not mentioned in Acts is not a decisive argument for the dating of the book: Luke's goal has been reached when he has brought Paul to Rome and left him preaching the gospel freely there. Certainly, Paul's arrival in Rome, his gospel witness there for two years, the legal procedure involved in the bearing of his appeal to Caesar, must have brought Christianity to the notice of classes in Roman society on which it had until then made no impression. The interest that was now aroused in it did not die out, but maintained itself and increased, until under Domitian (A.D. 81-96) it had penetrated the highest ranks of all. At any time in this period a work which gave an intelligible history of the rise and progress of Christianity, and at the same time gave a reasoned reply to popular calumnies against it, was sure of a reception amongst the intelligent reading public--or rather listening public--of Rome, of whom Theophilus was probably a representative. Its positive defense was best expressed in the words of Paul, the Roman citizen, whose appeal to Caesar was made not only on his own behalf but on behalf of the Christian community and its faith."

I realize that this is a rather lengthy quote, but I thought you would like to see a scholar who you claim to respect admit not only to the apologetic intent of Luke who "strikes an apologetic note" and has a "goal", but at the same time put the lie to the claim that the early Christians were systematically persecuted by the Romans.

I also seriously doubt if Acts would have been "considered historical" by the Apostle Paul due to the discrepancies between it and Paul's own epistles.
In any case, if one believes Acts is accurate then they also believe gLuke is accurate and then they also believe that Jesus is the resurrected Son O' God, and your entire circular argument is superfluous.

It certainly wasn’t “Canon” at the time.

That hardly prevents it from representing the viewpoint of it's author(s) as opposed to other viewpoints. Whether or not it was canonical is a red herring.

Farrell Till is a dedicated anti-Christian hack who makes all kinds of outrageous claims. I wouldn’t trust him with my pet Airdale.

Maybe your dog can explain the uselessness of your ad hominem argument to you. It doesn't matter if Till is a three-toed sloth. The only thing that matters is whether or not he is right about McBirnie's book. If you have evidence that shows that he isn't then do bring it on. Furthermore, you'll have to show that Till is incorrect in directly quoting McBirnie as saying that his own book contains contradictions and inconsistencies.

So what does that prove, even if it’s correct?

Draw your own conclusions! You don't seem to care about evidence anyway. Just because it's easy and it answers your objections about both gnosticism and the authorship of gJohn, here's the relevant Wikipedia entry...

"The Gospel of John shows the clearest similarity to later gnostic writing style in general, and parts of the gospel have a similar dream-like quality to the writing (compare the Gospel of Truth, and more especially the Trimorphic Protennoia). The opening verses of John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" allude to the Gnostic concept of the Logos (which translates as Word), a divine presence. The themes of light and knowledge contrast with the themes of physical being and worldliness throughout John.

However, the phrase "and the Word became flesh, and dwelt amongst us" is clearly at variance with docetism, a belief that many Gnostics held that the human nature of Jesus was illusory, as the Perfect Saviour inherent in a Christ could not partake in the inherently corrupt (according to gnosticism) nature of matter. Also, the opening phrase is clearly at variance with Arianism, a very large second century sect of Christianity, later branded as heretical, which asserted that there was a time previous to Jesus' existence. Many theologians therefore believe that John states positions in order to invert them and counter-assert one of the positions that later became orthodox.

It is notable that much of John has this form, consistently drawing on positions held by later second century and early third century groups in order to contradict them and cast them as heretical. These groups frequently did not exist in the late first century and early second century, Arianism being a prime example, and it would be odd for them to arise if a gospel was circulating which so clearly condemned the positions that did not yet exist. For this reason, and since also the first quotations from the Gospel of John appear in the anti-heresy works of Irenaeus, many scholars cast doubt on the Authorship of the Gospel of John, and often consider it to have been a second century polemic by an author holding what later became the position of the orthodoxy."

So far you have presented nothing to counter my original point, which was that the NT authors had a wealth of existent material to draw on in the creation of their writings (and that they used them). You did, however, admit that Paul "goes into much detail about the Old Testament as the basis for a number of his doctrinal issues."

Oh, and I somehow missed this bit earlier...

And whether you want to cite one theologian as theorizing John 1:14 was "added," (which is hardly widely accepted)...

...even though the article says...

"...many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' - was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John'"

So either your reading comprehension is highly selective (my bet) or your knowledge of Bible scholarship is superior to that of Randel Helms and Raymond Brown! Seriously, do you just make this stuff up?

You mean secular historians, or what? Isn’t this an evidence on their part of a pre-conceived, anti-supernatural bias which cannot be validated by science?

As bernee51 said earlier...

"Are the Vedas historical? Is the Bhagvad Gita? Is the Epic of Gilgamesh?"

Do "Christian" historians accept the supernatural claims in these books or do they employ a double standard? At least 'secular' historians (and honest Christian ones) are consistently skeptical of supernatural claims regardless of their source.
Furthermore the existence of the supernatural is an unfalsifiable assumption which can no more be invalidated by science than can the bogeyman.

Anyway, like I said, you have sources that you are enamored with, and so do others.

Should I take that to mean that you lack the evidence to successfully argue for your claim about the NT authors "putting their lives on the line"?
Perhaps you should have included a statement in the OP to the effect that your argument is based on your own personal subjective beliefs and that arguments based on an examination of any facts, logic, or evidence are not appropriate.

I notice that earlier on this thread you cite the estimable Christian apologist Josh McDowell. You might like to read my evaluation of some of his arguments on this thread...
Are McDowell Apologetics Valid or Lame?

[Easyrider]

What you deem apologetic is considered historical by others.

And? Some people think the pyramids were built by aliens. Big deal!
That crazy wild-eyed liberal F.F. Bruce had this to say...

"It is necessary, then, to look for an appropriate life-setting for a work which strikes the apologetic note in just this way."

"So far as the Neronian persecution is concerned, even Tacitus (no friend to Christians) admits that it was the action of one man's malignity rather than an expression of public policy, and the official reprobation of Nero's memory and actions at his death could have been held to cover his persecution of the Christians of Rome. So Luke's recording of favorable judgments which had been passed on Christianity by other Roman authorities might have been intended to suggest that Nero's anti-Christian activity was an irresponsible and criminal attack by that now excrated ruler on a movement whose innocence had been amply attested by many worthier representatives of Roman power."

Again, whether Paul's execution was or was not an incident in the Neronian persecution, the fact that it is not mentioned in Acts is not a decisive argument for the dating of the book: Luke's goal has been reached when he has brought Paul to Rome and left him preaching the gospel freely there. Certainly, Paul's arrival in Rome, his gospel witness there for two years, the legal procedure involved in the bearing of his appeal to Caesar, must have brought Christianity to the notice of classes in Roman society on which it had until then made no impression. The interest that was now aroused in it did not die out, but maintained itself and increased, until under Domitian (A.D. 81-96) it had penetrated the highest ranks of all. At any time in this period a work which gave an intelligible history of the rise and progress of Christianity, and at the same time gave a reasoned reply to popular calumnies against it, was sure of a reception amongst the intelligent reading public--or rather listening public--of Rome, of whom Theophilus was probably a representative. Its positive defense was best expressed in the words of Paul, the Roman citizen, whose appeal to Caesar was made not only on his own behalf but on behalf of the Christian community and its faith."

I realize that this is a rather lengthy quote, but I thought you would like to see a scholar who you claim to respect admit not only to the apologetic intent of Luke who "strikes an apologetic note" and has a "goal", but at the same time put the lie to the claim that the early Christians were systematically persecuted by the Romans.

I also seriously doubt if Acts would have been "considered historical" by the Apostle Paul due to the discrepancies between it and Paul's own epistles.
In any case, if one believes Acts is accurate then they also believe gLuke is accurate and then they also believe that Jesus is the resurrected Son O' God, and your entire circular argument is superfluous.

It certainly wasn’t “Canon” at the time.

That hardly prevents it from representing the viewpoint of it's author(s) as opposed to other viewpoints. Whether or not it was canonical is a red herring.

Farrell Till is a dedicated anti-Christian hack who makes all kinds of outrageous claims. I wouldn’t trust him with my pet Airdale.

Maybe your dog can explain the uselessness of your ad hominem argument to you. It doesn't matter if Till is a three-toed sloth. The only thing that matters is whether or not he is right about McBirnie's book. If you have evidence that shows that he isn't then do bring it on. Furthermore, you'll have to show that Till is incorrect in directly quoting McBirnie as saying that his own book contains contradictions and inconsistencies.

So what does that prove, even if it’s correct?

Draw your own conclusions! You don't seem to care about evidence anyway. Just because it's easy and it answers your objections about both gnosticism and the authorship of gJohn, here's the relevant Wikipedia entry...

"The Gospel of John shows the clearest similarity to later gnostic writing style in general, and parts of the gospel have a similar dream-like quality to the writing (compare the Gospel of Truth, and more especially the Trimorphic Protennoia). The opening verses of John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" allude to the Gnostic concept of the Logos (which translates as Word), a divine presence. The themes of light and knowledge contrast with the themes of physical being and worldliness throughout John.

However, the phrase "and the Word became flesh, and dwelt amongst us" is clearly at variance with docetism, a belief that many Gnostics held that the human nature of Jesus was illusory, as the Perfect Saviour inherent in a Christ could not partake in the inherently corrupt (according to gnosticism) nature of matter. Also, the opening phrase is clearly at variance with Arianism, a very large second century sect of Christianity, later branded as heretical, which asserted that there was a time previous to Jesus' existence. Many theologians therefore believe that John states positions in order to invert them and counter-assert one of the positions that later became orthodox.

It is notable that much of John has this form, consistently drawing on positions held by later second century and early third century groups in order to contradict them and cast them as heretical. These groups frequently did not exist in the late first century and early second century, Arianism being a prime example, and it would be odd for them to arise if a gospel was circulating which so clearly condemned the positions that did not yet exist. For this reason, and since also the first quotations from the Gospel of John appear in the anti-heresy works of Irenaeus, many scholars cast doubt on the Authorship of the Gospel of John, and often consider it to have been a second century polemic by an author holding what later became the position of the orthodoxy."

So far you have presented nothing to counter my original point, which was that the NT authors had a wealth of existent material to draw on in the creation of their writings (and that they used them). You did, however, admit that Paul "goes into much detail about the Old Testament as the basis for a number of his doctrinal issues."

Oh, and I somehow missed this bit earlier...

And whether you want to cite one theologian as theorizing John 1:14 was "added," (which is hardly widely accepted)...

...even though the article says...

"...many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' - was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John'"

So either your reading comprehension is highly selective (my bet) or your knowledge of Bible scholarship is superior to that of Randel Helms and Raymond Brown! Seriously, do you just make this stuff up?

You mean secular historians, or what? Isn’t this an evidence on their part of a pre-conceived, anti-supernatural bias which cannot be validated by science?

As bernee51 said earlier...

"Are the Vedas historical? Is the Bhagvad Gita? Is the Epic of Gilgamesh?"

Do "Christian" historians accept the supernatural claims in these books or do they employ a double standard? At least 'secular' historians (and honest Christian ones) are consistently skeptical of supernatural claims regardless of their source.
Furthermore the existence of the supernatural is an unfalsifiable assumption which can no more be invalidated by science than can the bogeyman.

Anyway, like I said, you have sources that you are enamored with, and so do others.

Should I take that to mean that you lack the evidence to successfully argue for your claim about the NT authors "putting their lives on the line"?
Perhaps you should have included a statement in the OP to the effect that your argument is based on your own personal subjective beliefs and that arguments based on an examination of any facts, logic, or evidence are not appropriate.

I notice that earlier on this thread you cite the estimable Christian apologist Josh McDowell. You might like to read my evaluation of some of his arguments on this thread...
Are McDowell Apologetics Valid or Lame?

You may want to use some common sense in your thinking about early Christian martyrs. It actually goes back to the Old Testament where they persecuted and murdered their own Jewish prophets. Then they persecuted John the Baptist and took his head off. Next came Jesus, and then Stephen, and James (as verified by Josephus), and the church in general, and also Peter and Paul. From there you had Polycarp, a disciple of John who was burned at the stake around 151 A.D. Then there were other early church fathers as well. In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius tells of many martyrs in the Christian church prior to 324 C. E. - a list of whom follow in the following link:

http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/earlmart.htm

Add to that the persecutions in Rome and elsewhere, from 62-64 A.D. on. Tacitus provided the following statement on that: "First, Nero had some of the members of this (Christian) sect arrested. Then, on their information, large numbers were condemned -- not so much for arson, but for their hatred of the human race. Their deaths were made a farce." And that only touches the surface.

So what you're trying to tell me and others here is: Apostles and Christians can go into numerous territories and seek to instill a largely unpopular moral framework, along with repentance of sins, and seek to instill a brand new religion and a new God amongst individuals who no doubt would take great offense at that in the name of their own gods (who are basically labeled as false gods by the Christians), so that the infidels give up their livelyhoods as siversmiths of idols, etc., and all that doesn't raise their ire up even 10 degrees? Are you serious? You and Till and others can believe that, but common sense and the references I mentioned tell a different story.

Regarding the NT authors having a wealth of existent material to draw on in the creation of their writings, they certainly had the Old Testament, and they had the Holy Spirit (John 14:26) to bring them remembrance of all things that Christ taught, and they had the resurrected Christ Himself as a source. And, they had each other and many other witnesses. What more was needed?

Next, you said, "In any case, if one believes Acts is accurate then they also believe gLuke is accurate and then they also believe that Jesus is the resurrected Son O' God, and your entire circular argument is superfluous."

That's quite a leap. Maybe you can make 1 (one) such case from scripture?

Finally, Gnosticism was thoroughly rebuffed by both John and the early Church fathers, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, and even to a limited extent, Origin, although he did buy into some of their folly.

Christianity and the Gospel of John are at great odds with Gnosticism. As I previously mentioned, Gnostic salvation came by knowledge and experience, not by Christ and the Word of God. John countered the gnostic doctrine that God cannot become flesh by stating, “And the Word (God) became flesh” (I don't buy your John 1:14 redaction argument since the Epistle of John is redundant on this). Gnostics had a “secret” knowledge. John evangelized the message of Jesus’s personal salvation to everyone he could. Gnostics deny God could incarnate as man, and their idea of a Redeemer is not one who died on a cross for the sins of the world. Very simply put, you can grind that gnostic axe, but I'm afraid you're wasting your time here.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on these issues. If you have some other subject matter I will be glad to look at it.

Cheers!

[Lotan]

You may want to use some common sense in your thinking about early Christian martyrs.

If you mean not relying unquestioningly on 'traditions' that were recorded by the early 'church Fathers', then you are correct.

Then they persecuted John the Baptist and took his head off.

John wasn't a 'Christian' regardless of what the evangelists say, nor was he subordinate to Jesus of Nazareth, and for that matter, he wasn't a NT author either.

Next came Jesus, and then Stephen, and James (as verified by Josephus),...

None of this is as clear cut as you would like to believe...

"As Hans-Joachim Schoeps had already surmised, the stoning of Stephen has in precisely the same way supplanted the stoning of James (actually a conflation of James' ultimate stoning at the command of Ananus and an earlier assault by Saul on the temple steps preserved as a separate incident in the Recognitions). The name Stephen has been borrowed from a Roman official beaten by Jewish insurgents whom Josephus depicts ambushing him outside the city walls. Why this name? Because of a pun: Stephen means "crown" and was suggested both by the "crown" of long hair worn by the Nazirite (which James was, according to early church writers) and by the crown of martyrdom. To Stephen has been transferred James' declaration of the Son of Man at the right hand of God in heaven, as well as James' "Christlike" prayer for his persecutors. (Eisenman might have noted, too, that the martyr's original identity as James the Just is signaled by Acts 7:52, "the Just, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become"!)
We read that a young man named Saul was playing coat checker for the executioners of Stephen and, his taste for blood whetted, immediately began to foment persecution in Jerusalem and Damascus. This has been drawn, again, from the lore of James as well as Josephus. The clothing motif was suggested by the final blow to James' head with a fuller's club, while just after his own account of James' death, Josephus tells of the rioting started by a Herodian named Saulus in Jerusalem!"

The reference by Josephus to "James the brother of Jesus" is by no means undisputed either. (Arguments for and against may be found here).
And this should come as no surprise by now either…

” …most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph…”

...and the church in general...

Propaganda.

...and also Peter and Paul.

Would that be the Paul who died in Rome, or the Paul who died in Spain, or England? Like I said before I have no problem believing that Peter and Paul were rounded up by Nero as scapegoats, but I have no specific reason to accept that that must be true. Either way, Nero's persecution was short-lived, and not part of any systemic persecution of Christians, as referenced earlier.

From there you had Polycarp, a disciple of John who was burned at the stake around 151 A.D. Then there were other early church fathers as well. In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius tells of many martyrs in the Christian church prior to 324 C. E. - a list of whom follow in the following link:

So Polycarp died in 151? That's odd. Wikipedia says...

"The date of Polycarp's death is disputed. Eusebius dates it to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, circa 166 – 167. However, a post-Eusebian addition to the Martyrdom of Polycarp dates his death to Saturday, February 23 in the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus—which works out to be 155 or 156. These earlier dates better fit the tradition of his association with Ignatius and John the Evangelist."

The ECW site says 155. And the site that you listed as a source says 143!

"Polycarp:
He was a teacher from Asia who taught multitudes not to sacrifice to the gods nor worship them. Through a vision he had, he said that he must be burned alive. After he was bound to the stake, he prayed and awaited the fire. The flames gave the appearance of an oven around him. He was in the midst, not like burning flesh, but like gold and silver purified in the flames. A fragrant odour, like the fumes of incense, or other precious aromatic drugs, was perceived. When the persecutors saw that his body could not be consumed by fire, they commanded the executor to plunge his sword into him. When this was done, such a quantity of blood gushed forth that the fire was extinguished. His body was later burned according to the custom of the Gentiles, and his bones were buried. (143)"

This part is especially precious...

"These accounts may not seem to be believable, yet they are documented in the writings of the best-known and most reliable historian in the early Christian church."

Imagine what someone less reliable might have written!

Besides the storybook details of Polycarp's death, and the 'hard to believe' nature of the other accounts on that site, there is a major problem with accepting them as evidence. Hopefully you can clear it up. Since we are discussing whether or not the NT authors were "putting their lives on the line", of what possible relevance are the stories of alleged martyrs whose deaths are recorded to have occurred centuries after the books of the NT were written?

So what you're trying to tell me and others here is: Apostles and Christians can go into numerous territories and seek to instill a largely unpopular moral framework, along with repentance of sins, and seek to instill a brand new religion and a new God amongst individuals who no doubt would take great offense at that in the name of their own gods (who are basically labeled as false gods by the Christians), so that the infidels give up their livelyhoods as siversmiths of idols, etc., and all that doesn't raise their ire up even 10 degrees?

I'm not trying to tell you that at all! I seriously doubt that most of the 12 (or 15?) apostles listed in the NT even existed, and certainly not as they are portrayed, either in the pious inventions of later Christian leaders or in the NT itself.
If any disciples of Jesus actually did evangelize in gentile territory I would expect them to follow the example of Paul and poach 'God-fearers' from diaspora synagogues.
Furthermore I find it laughable that you refer to Christianity as "largely unpopular" when the standard apologetic metaphor is that Christianity spread 'like wildfire'. Judahism (complete with the moral framework and repentance, etc.) was already very popular across the Roman empire. Christianity offered those things to the gentiles without the requirement to follow the Torah (circumcision, dietary laws, Sabbath, etc.) which had previously hindered them from becoming full Jews.

You and Till and others can believe that, but common sense and the references I mentioned tell a different story.

I think "story" is the right word, and it is hardly "common sense" to uncritically accept the reality of fantastic supernatural events on the testimony of ancient apologists. Do you believe all legends or only those that support your belief in Jesus?

Regarding the NT authors having a wealth of existent material to draw on in the creation of their writings, they certainly had the Old Testament, and they had the Holy Spirit (John 14:26) to bring them remembrance of all things that Christ taught, and they had the resurrected Christ Himself as a source. And, they had each other and many other witnesses. What more was needed?

A continuity editor? Too bad the "Holy Spirit" couldn't help the evangelists get their stories straight, even when they copied from one another.
Besides the OT, none of the 'sources' that you have listed can be objectively verified. They are matters of faith only, beyond debate. Fortunately, the NT authors had other sources for which we do have hard evidence...

"The theology of the Essenes is similar to that of the gnostic Gospel of John, and also to that of Luke. The "sons of Light" stand implacably against the "sons of darkness" and a "prince of light" - to the Christians, Jesus. The phrase "children of light" in Luke (16:8) is characteristic of the Essene writings, as is the speech Jesus is sadi to have made to the priests and officers of the temple: "But this is your moment - the hour when darkness reigns." John says that Jesus goes by night, "when no man can work." The idea of the final battle between the forces of darkness and light can be found throughout the Essene texts as it can throughout Luke and John." - Jesus, Son of Man, Rudolf Augstein, pg. 113

Besides the ‘Suffering Servant’ in Isaiah, and the ‘Son of Man’ in Daniel, the evangelists also had the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ as a model for their portrait of the ‘historical’ Jesus. The parallels between the NT and Essene writings are too numerous for me to detail here. Please refer to this article, Qumran and the New Testament for more information.
It is also interesting to note that the NT has a poison pen for the Pharisees and the Saducees, but says not one word about the Essenes.

Next, you said, "In any case, if one believes Acts is accurate then they also believe gLuke is accurate and then they also believe that Jesus is the resurrected Son O' God, and your entire circular argument is superfluous."
That's quite a leap. Maybe you can make 1 (one) such case from scripture?

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what it is that you are asking for here. Can you please explain?
My point was that using Acts as evidence that other parts of the NT are true is a circular argument ("The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible").

Finally, Gnosticism was thoroughly rebuffed by both John and the early Church fathers, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, and even to a limited extent, Origin, although he did buy into some of their folly.

I thought you might get a kick out of this…

"There is a direct line from Apostle Paul to Marcion to St Augustine (former Manichaein and avid neo-Platonist) to Calvin/Luther to Protestant Christian fundamentalists today. The 'faith alone doctrine is part of ridding Christianity of "works" meaning Judaism. (Thus all of Jesus moral/ethical teachings can be ignored.)"

Christianity and the Gospel of John are at great odds with Gnosticism. As I previously mentioned, Gnostic salvation came by knowledge and experience, not by Christ and the Word of God. John countered the gnostic doctrine that God cannot become flesh by stating, “And the Word (God) became flesh” (I don't buy your John 1:14 redaction argument since the Epistle of John is redundant on this).

Well, it’s not my redaction argument in the first place, and Brown (and Helms) actually cite I John as the reason for this interpolation…

"He admits that many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' – was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John' (1979, 109) but continues to write as if there were no revision of the Fourth Gospel."

If you don’t believe that gJohn has been tampered with here’s something from an old classic, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament by Robert M. Grant…

" Especially in the twentieth century, scholars have pointed to difficulties in the Gospel of John which suggest that (1) it is not in order as it stands, (2) it has been interpolated by an editor, and (3) either the editor or the author made use of earlier sources which can be detected. It need hardly be said that such theories are not altogether new. Origen was well aware of some of the difficulties, and he used them to support his claim that the evangelist was concerned with spiritual truths rather than with historical events."

Gnostics had a “secret” knowledge. John evangelized the message of Jesus’s personal salvation to everyone he could. Gnostics deny God could incarnate as man, and their idea of a Redeemer is not one who died on a cross for the sins of the world.

That would depend on your definition of “incarnate” wouldn’t it? Actually, never mind.

Very simply put, you can grind that gnostic axe, but I'm afraid you're wasting your time here.

Trying to convince you that gJohn is Gnostic flavored? Object all you like, the early 2nd century Gnostics sure ate it up.
Here’s Robert M. Grant again…

"The earliest evidence for the existence of the Fourth Gospel or, at any rate, of the distinctive ideas of its author, is provided in the letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch about 115. The gospel itself was used by the Gnostic teacher Basilides, early in the second century at Alexandria, and from the same period comes a tiny papyrus fragment containing several verses of John 18. Orthodox teachers like Justin made use of the gospel at Rome, and wall paintings in the Roman catacombs (c. 175) portray Johannine themes. The earliest ‘commentaries’ on John which we know, come from Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, disciples of the Christian Gnostic Valentinus; both of them ascribed the book to John, the disciple of Jesus. "

We will simply have to agree to disagree on these issues.

OK. I disagree with your premise. The NT authors composed their works in neither Jerusalem nor Rome, and after the destruction of the Second Temple, and were in no serious peril. Furthermore, they did not consider their stories to be lies even if they weren’t based, for the greatest part, on recent historical events.

[Cathar1950]

Thank you Lotan. You make up for me being lazy.
I guess I will just have to agree to disagree with easyrider also.
I enjoyed the book "James the brother of Jesus" and I am reading it for the 3 time.
Some of the martyrs begged the authorities to kill them.
It does seem that the stories were exaggerated . There were little flurries of persecution but hardly widespread or constant and usually to maintain the peace.

[Easyrider]

Well, Lotan, once again you have your sources and opinions and I and a great many scholars have ones that are totally at odds with yours. You might get a rise out of this:

The Anvil that Has Worn Out Many Hammers

Nineteenth century writer H.L. Hastings once forcibly illustrated the unique way in which the Bible has withstood the attacks of skepticism:

"Infidels of eighteen hundred years have been refuting and overthrowing this book, and yet it stands today as solid as a rock. Its circulation increases, and it is more loved and cherished and read today than ever before. Infidels, with all their assaults, make about as much impression on this book as a man with a tack hammer would on the Pyramids of Egypt.

"When the French monarch proposed the persecution of Christians in his dominion, an old statesman and warrior said to him, 'Sire, the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.' So the hammers of infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die and the book still lives."

"No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized, and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet? The Bible is still loved by millions, and studied by millions.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0002_Anvil.html

Jesus is Lord!

[McCulloch]

The Anvil that Has Worn Out Many Hammers

A classic case of the fallacy of Ad Populum. see also Appeal to the People or Appeal to Common Belief.