The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

[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?

[boatsnguitars]

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.” ....

First, you are quaoting Sean, not Josh.

Next, let Josh explain it himself:

All but one of these disciples would eventually be murdered for doggedly sharing the Good News. Peter was crucified. Andrew was crucified. James was killed by the sword. Philip was crucified. Bartholomew was crucified. Thomas was killed by a spear. Matthew was killed by the sword. James, son of Alphaeus, was crucified. Thaddaeus was killed by arrows. Simon, the zealot, was crucified. Only John died a natural death.

https://www.josh.org/disillusioned-disc ... e-for-lie/

First, note the pious fraud? He asserts how the apostles died in favor of his preferred narrative - he doesn't care that there is dispute, he has a story to tell.
https://overviewbible.com/how-did-the-apostles-die/

Sean goes on to change the pious lie his father told to make it more palatable:
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/biola-magaz ... or-their-f

However, they don't know how they died. For all we know, they were killed by Christians for apostasy:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Priscillian

After all, are we sure Christians didn't kill Judas for being an apostate?

In the end, there is no special claim about Christians dying for their belief. All religions have history of people doing it. And each religion thinks they have the uniqueness to their story to make it compelling.

The crime is that Christian Apologists teach it as if it is something special, or compelling. (While ignoring the many times people have stopped believing but were killed, or killed simply because they were 'cultural Christians'. Christians will take credit for everything: "Hitler died without recanting his Christian belief, therefore Christianity must be true!"

[TRANSPONDER]

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”.

Only becaue it is the central obsession of Christians. You would need to show that it was the central obsession of the Jewish Authorities. As I said, they didn't nail Jesus up because he preached resurrection, but he challenged their authority.

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".

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.

Ok, then I think it is a fair case I made and the objections I've seen you put here are weak, where they didn't concede, like accepting alternatives to Lord. Liar and lunatic, thus refuting that proposition, or indeed the cases I made for the gospel record not being trustworthy, which you hardly responded to at all

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.

Since Jesus was quoting the OT to the Sadducees in that passage, it would make sense that's he'd quote the correct passage in Hebrew rather than the incorrect passage from the Greek, wouldn't you say? Further, you would have to substantiate your claim that to quote an unreliable Greek translation of their scripture was 'accepted practice with quotes back then'. That just seems to be a loose claim. Finally, Nobody but Matthew has that passage, which would suggest that Matthew made it up. Over to you.

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.

I disagree. The total contradiction of the gospels is reason to suggest there was not a single story they all agreed, and is why Mark doesn't actually have one. All they agree on in the empty tomb, and that is not enough to prove a resurrection, much as the believers would like to have it so.

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 that, I have to ask you if you accept that the appearance Paul refers to is of the resurrection related in the gospels (Sunday of Holy Week) or a vision that appeared to him while he was somewhere else and later on in the 30's AD.

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.

"I think it is clearly connected to the resurrection" is a personal opinion, and I have explained above why it does not carry weight. As to personal opinion, though I can argue a case, I do not accept Acts as a valid record of events, but a religious fiction loosely based on Paul's letters, which influence the Luke writer in his gospel (he altered the angelic message and wangled in an 'appearance to Simon' to agree with Paul. You only have to compare the 'council of Jerusalem' with the private chat Paul says he had with James to see that Acts is not to be taken as a reliable account.

I'll check Galatians.

Gal. 5 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 I don't think it is saying that Paul is being persecuted for preaching the cross, ever mind resurrection let alone the solid body resurrection of the gospels (you have some work to do to validate that idea) but preaching against circumcision, the bedrock of Mosaic Law. He says or at least implies that if he were teaching the law he would have no problems. It follows that if he is being persecuted, it is because he is preaching against the Law.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #31]

Yes, I meant to type Sean there. I don’t think you’ve shown that Josh McDowell committed pious fraud. He seems to have truly believed those accounts of deaths. That’s not fraud. I think he put too much stock in those accounts. Sean McDowell also thinks he did.

Sean (and I and many other Christians) feel the persecution (not death) of the apostles without recantations of their message centered on Jesus’ resurrection is a good reason to doubt the “apostles’ lied” theory. The uniqueness is not about Christians not recanting in the face of persecution for their beliefs, but the special case of those who would have made up the lie not recanting in the face of persecution for their lie.

This isn't claiming that since they didn’t lie about the resurrection, it must have happened and Christianity is true. It’s just a mark against the disciples’ lied theory. There are other theories to analyze.

[The Tanager]

Only becaue it is the central obsession of Christians. You would need to show that it was the central obsession of the Jewish Authorities. As I said, they didn't nail Jesus up because he preached resurrection, but he challenged their authority.

It’s not about why Jesus was persecuted, but why his followers were. They didn’t challenge his authority in the same way Jesus did. He taught things that drew people away from their thinking, including being the divine messiah. Jesus’ followers drew people away from their thinking by teaching a risen Messiah.

Ok, then I think it is a fair case I made and the objections I've seen you put here are weak, where they didn't concede, like accepting alternatives to Lord. Liar and lunatic, thus refuting that proposition, or indeed the cases I made for the gospel record not being trustworthy, which you hardly responded to at all

I didn’t concede there because I wasn’t convinced your reasoning refuted the claim that Jesus is Lord. I also wasn’t convinced by your case for the gospel record being untrustworthy, directly responding to all 5 points you made with multiple sentences. Your response to all of that was that I was still trundling the goalposts and that it was a derailment of the thread.

Since Jesus was quoting the OT to the Sadducees in that passage, it would make sense that's he'd quote the correct passage in Hebrew rather than the incorrect passage from the Greek, wouldn't you say?

No, because he often quoted from the Septuagint and was writing to a Greek speaking audience.

Further, you would have to substantiate your claim that to quote an unreliable Greek translation of their scripture was 'accepted practice with quotes back then'. That just seems to be a loose claim.

It was a Greek translation used by Jews of the day. But I’m talking about how people didn’t care about getting verbatim quotes from their people, being fine with quotes that got the gist across. So, your claim that Jesus wouldn’t have used the Septuagint translation fails.

Finally, Nobody but Matthew has that passage, which would suggest that Matthew made it up. Over to you.

Has what passage? The quote? The story of Jesus’ interaction with the Sadduccees?

I disagree. The total contradiction of the gospels is reason to suggest there was not a single story they all agreed, and is why Mark doesn't actually have one. All they agree on in the empty tomb, and that is not enough to prove a resurrection, much as the believers would like to have it so.

They all agree that a resurrection happened, which (it seems to me) is what you were saying the contradictions prove didn’t actually occur.

As to that, I have to ask you if you accept that the appearance Paul refers to is of the resurrection related in the gospels (Sunday of Holy Week) or a vision that appeared to him while he was somewhere else and later on in the 30's AD.

Later on.

"I think it is clearly connected to the resurrection" is a personal opinion, and I have explained above why it does not carry weight.

And I went on to explain why I thought it did. It was a thesis statement that I then went on to support.

As to personal opinion, though I can argue a case, I do not accept Acts as a valid record of events, but a religious fiction loosely based on Paul's letters, which influence the Luke writer in his gospel (he altered the angelic message and wangled in an 'appearance to Simon' to agree with Paul. You only have to compare the 'council of Jerusalem' with the private chat Paul says he had with James to see that Acts is not to be taken as a reliable account.

Yes, but remember the direct context was about what the Bible says with you saying the Bible doesn’t say so regarding the resurrection being the reason for persecution.

Gal. 5 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 I don't think it is saying that Paul is being persecuted for preaching the cross, ever mind resurrection let alone the solid body resurrection of the gospels (you have some work to do to validate that idea) but preaching against circumcision, the bedrock of Mosaic Law. He says or at least implies that if he were teaching the law he would have no problems. It follows that if he is being persecuted, it is because he is preaching against the Law.

Then what does the bit about “In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished”? Paul says that if they believe they have to be circumcised, then Christ isn’t of value to them. We aren’t justified by obeying the law, but through Jesus. It’s not about the law, but about the cross. That’s his message and what he is being persecuted for.

[TRANSPONDER]

Only becaue it is the central obsession of Christians. You would need to show that it was the central obsession of the Jewish Authorities. As I said, they didn't nail Jesus up because he preached resurrection, but he challenged their authority.

It’s not about why Jesus was persecuted, but why his followers were. They didn’t challenge his authority in the same way Jesus did. He taught things that drew people away from their thinking, including being the divine messiah. Jesus’ followers drew people away from their thinking by teaching a risen Messiah.

Yes, but the conflict before the crucifixion is more the reason for the later conflict than a claimed resurrection was, even if hat became super importat for the believers. It does not make it the first choice for that the Sanhedrin was annoyed about.

Ok, then I think it is a fair case I made and the objections I've seen you put here are weak, where they didn't concede, like accepting alternatives to Lord. Liar and lunatic, thus refuting that proposition, or indeed the cases I made for the gospel record not being trustworthy, which you hardly responded to at all

I didn’t concede there because I wasn’t convinced your reasoning refuted the claim that Jesus is Lord. I also wasn’t convinced by your case for the gospel record being untrustworthy, directly responding to all 5 points you made with multiple sentences. Your response to all of that was that I was still trundling the goalposts and that it was a derailment of the thread.

You responded? I'll check back. And you shift the goalposts or strawman that argument. The point is not that other options refute the Lord claim, but there are other explanations, more useful than liar or lunatic (not that those can be ruled out) and that debunks 'Lord' as the the only credible option. Thus Lewis' apologetic proposition fails. I don't recall it was me, rather than you talking of derailments and off topic. Though I may be thinking of the Other thread we are debating. Just now I couldn't find the Gospel contradictions I tought I posted here, where did you respond?

Since Jesus was quoting the OT to the Sadducees in that passage, it would make sense that's he'd quote the correct passage in Hebrew rather than the incorrect passage from the Greek, wouldn't you say?

No, because he often quoted from the Septuagint and was writing to a Greek speaking audience.

We are talking of what Jesus supposedly said to the strict -Law Sadducees, aren't we? If Jesus had quoted a Greek mistranslation at them he'd be discredited to everyone. Just as Matthew is by saying that Jesus did that. And as I say, Matthew is the only one to say so. Debate all you like but I say the evidence is that Matthew made it up.

Further, you would have to substantiate your claim that to quote an unreliable Greek translation of their scripture was 'accepted practice with quotes back then'. That just seems to be a loose claim.

It was a Greek translation used by Jews of the day. But I’m talking about how people didn’t care about getting verbatim quotes from their people, being fine with quotes that got the gist across. So, your claim that Jesus wouldn’t have used the Septuagint translation fails.

No, yours does fail because Jesus was making a point to the Sadducees and if he'd used a Greek mistranslation to validate a point to them, they would slam back that his quote is not what's in the Scriptures. But of course it was written by Greek Christians, so they see nothing wrong with it and the Sanhedrin makes no reply. This stuff was invented by Greek Christians to fool people into belief, and it has worked very well.

Finally, Nobody but Matthew has that passage, which would suggest that Matthew made it up. Over to you.

Has what passage? The quote? The story of Jesus’ interaction with the Sadduccees?

Yes, that one. Mathew 21.16. So far as I have seen nobody else has it. Even though Mark and Luke write the other stuff there and even John has the ride to the Temple.

I disagree. The total contradiction of the gospels is reason to suggest there was not a single story they all agreed, and is why Mark doesn't actually have one. All they agree on in the empty tomb, and that is not enough to prove a resurrection, much as the believers would like to have it so.

They all agree that a resurrection happened, which (it seems to me) is what you were saying the contradictions prove didn’t actually occur.

But that is the claim, not the evidence for the claim. The 'evidence' is four conflicting stories that ought to have been thrown in the gutter long ago. Mark does not even have one, and that should be the clue (though I missed it for a long time) that originally there was only the empty tomb and a claim that of course Jesus resurrected. I know that for 2,000 years the Experts have fiddled the cherry - picked quotes into one narrative (lust as they did with the nativities) and sold it to the public as a coherent narrative. Well, you can profess belief, but it'll come down to who is talking the facts and who is excusing them. If the people will hear and listen, not what you or I believe or dismiss.

As to that, I have to ask you if you accept that the appearance Paul refers to is of the resurrection related in the gospels (Sunday of Holy Week) or a vision that appeared to him while he was somewhere else and later on in the 30's AD.

Later on.

before 36/7 in Syria as he reckons he was Christian by then. How long after the crucifixion whenever that was I don't know. But Josephus says the Jews were blaming the defeat of Aretus about then on his killing the Baptist, so, given that Jesus' death couldn't have been long after that event, we can't be talking about too many years earlier. However, point is that I Cor, looks like Paul did not see the resurrection as in the gospels, but in his head, frankly. A spirit - image and not a solid body with holes in. Given that the I Cor list of witnesses does not resemble the gospels, isn't there a case that they too were seeing spirit Jesus in the head and Paul saw no difference between his imaginary Jesus and theirs?

"I think it is clearly connected to the resurrection" is a personal opinion, and I have explained above why it does not carry weight.

And I went on to explain why I thought it did. It was a thesis statement that I then went on to support.

And which I recall I showed was without weight. 'Thesis statement' or not.

As to personal opinion, though I can argue a case, I do not accept Acts as a valid record of events, but a religious fiction loosely based on Paul's letters, which influence the Luke writer in his gospel (he altered the angelic message and wangled in an 'appearance to Simon' to agree with Paul. You only have to compare the 'council of Jerusalem' with the private chat Paul says he had with James to see that Acts is not to be taken as a reliable account.

Yes, but remember the direct context was about what the Bible says with you saying the Bible doesn’t say so regarding the resurrection being the reason for persecution.

Not quite. I asked you to validate the claim that the disciples were 'persecuted' because they would not say the resurrection didn't happen. Your 'Thesis' is that the disciples were persecuted, the resurrection was important to them, so of course that was why they were persecuted. It fails because that may seem 'clearly' obvious to you but that is not the same as the Bible saying so. You point to Acts, but Acts is a work of fiction As indeed much of the gospels.

I'm going to be fair. You can argue persecution because they would not recant the resurrection. It's a reasonable claim, even without evidence, and you can point to Acts, even though I wouldn't trust Luke or is books any further than I could kick them, but you can point to it saying that was why they were persecuted. Paul really does not say that was why he claims persecution, but for sure they all believed a resurrection of a sort. But the point is that it supposedly proves it was true, because to believe it they must have seen it.

But that's where it fails - not they didn't believe the resurrection. but it was not the gospel one, but the one in I Cor which is something else. So my 'Thesis' is that, die for a lie or persecuted for a lie, whether they did or didn't suffer persecution or death because of the claim of the resurrection (which they surely believed) that is not evidence that it was true. Because what they believed they had seen was not what is in the gospels.

Gal. 5 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 I don't think it is saying that Paul is being persecuted for preaching the cross, ever mind resurrection let alone the solid body resurrection of the gospels (you have some work to do to validate that idea) but preaching against circumcision, the bedrock of Mosaic Law. He says or at least implies that if he were teaching the law he would have no problems. It follows that if he is being persecuted, it is because he is preaching against the Law.

Then what does the bit about “In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished”? Paul says that if they believe they have to be circumcised, then Christ isn’t of value to them. We aren’t justified by obeying the law, but through Jesus. It’s not about the law, but about the cross. That’s his message and what he is being persecuted for.

That he is preaching against the Mosaic Law (specifically circumcision), and if he was not, he would not be persecuted. I explained that already. Paul and his persecutions is not about preaching resurrection but preaching about the Jewish Law is not needed to be God's peoples.

[The Tanager]

Yes, but the conflict before the crucifixion is more the reason for the later conflict than a claimed resurrection was, even if hat became super importat for the believers. It does not make it the first choice for that the Sanhedrin was annoyed about.

No, they wouldn’t just persecute them because they persecuted Jesus, but for what they do after Jesus’ death.

You responded? I'll check back. And you shift the goalposts or strawman that argument. The point is not that other options refute the Lord claim, but there are other explanations, more useful than liar or lunatic (not that those can be ruled out) and that debunks 'Lord' as the the only credible option. Thus Lewis' apologetic proposition fails. I don't recall it was me, rather than you talking of derailments and off topic. Though I may be thinking of the Other thread we are debating. Just now I couldn't find the Gospel contradictions I tought I posted here, where did you respond?

I think you shared that in trilemma thread, but I’m not positive.

We are talking of what Jesus supposedly said to the strict -Law Sadducees, aren't we? If Jesus had quoted a Greek mistranslation at them he'd be discredited to everyone. Just as Matthew is by saying that Jesus did that. And as I say, Matthew is the only one to say so. Debate all you like but I say the evidence is that Matthew made it up.

No, yours does fail because Jesus was making a point to the Sadducees and if he'd used a Greek mistranslation to validate a point to them, they would slam back that his quote is not what's in the Scriptures. But of course it was written by Greek Christians, so they see nothing wrong with it and the Sanhedrin makes no reply. This stuff was invented by Greek Christians to fool people into belief, and it has worked very well.

We are talking of what Matthew wrote to his Greek audience relaying when Jesus responded to the Sadduccees. People back then were okay with quotes not being verbatim, just as long as they were accurate in the teaching. That wouldn’t mean that Jesus used the Septuagint or Greek with the Sadducees.

Yes, that one. Mathew 21.16. So far as I have seen nobody else has it. Even though Mark and Luke write the other stuff there and even John has the ride to the Temple.

Okay, so it is the only one with that story. Why is that a problem?

But that is the claim, not the evidence for the claim. The 'evidence' is four conflicting stories that ought to have been thrown in the gutter long ago. Mark does not even have one, and that should be the clue (though I missed it for a long time) that originally there was only the empty tomb and a claim that of course Jesus resurrected. I know that for 2,000 years the Experts have fiddled the cherry - picked quotes into one narrative (lust as they did with the nativities) and sold it to the public as a coherent narrative. Well, you can profess belief, but it'll come down to who is talking the facts and who is excusing them. If the people will hear and listen, not what you or I believe or dismiss.

Mark doesn’t claim a resurrection? Or doesn’t have a resurrection? I’m missing something here.

However, point is that I Cor, looks like Paul did not see the resurrection as in the gospels, but in his head, frankly. A spirit - image and not a solid body with holes in. Given that the I Cor list of witnesses does not resemble the gospels, isn't there a case that they too were seeing spirit Jesus in the head and Paul saw no difference between his imaginary Jesus and theirs?

I don’t think so because of what Paul talks about in the rest of 1 Cor 15. There Paul connects the resurrected body to the previous body; it’s not something entirely different and new. The same body of flesh will be transformed into a new, spiritual body. It’s not a spirit-image, but about the kind of life and activity the same (glorified) body has.

Not quite. I asked you to validate the claim that the disciples were 'persecuted' because they would not say the resurrection didn't happen. Your 'Thesis' is that the disciples were persecuted, the resurrection was important to them, so of course that was why they were persecuted. It fails because that may seem 'clearly' obvious to you but that is not the same as the Bible saying so. You point to Acts, but Acts is a work of fiction As indeed much of the gospels.

Not quite. In an earlier post I tried to clarify what you were asking for, because it seemed like you asked me for what the Bible claims, but you also talked about how you don’t trust the Biblical documents. I wasn’t going to say what the Bible claims if you were just going to say, but those can’t be trusted anyway. But then you said “To quote some other apologists: ‘It does not say so in the Bible.” I was directly responding to that claim. My support for that doesn’t fail because I point to Acts because Acts is in the Bible.

But the point is that it supposedly proves it was true, because to believe it they must have seen it.

That was never my point. I even explicitly said the opposite.

That he is preaching against the Mosaic Law (specifically circumcision), and if he was not, he would not be persecuted. I explained that already. Paul and his persecutions is not about preaching resurrection but preaching about the Jewish Law is not needed to be God's peoples.

I’m asking why Paul would say that “in that case the offense of the cross has been abolished”. The cross isn’t a symbol of preaching against the Mosaic Law or circumcision. Paul is saying he is not only preaching against circumcision as required for salvation but preaching for the cross as what brings salvation. Both elements are directly tied together and the reason he is being persecuted.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, but the conflict before the crucifixion is more the reason for the later conflict than a claimed resurrection was, even if hat became super importat for the believers. It does not make it the first choice for that the Sanhedrin was annoyed about.

No, they wouldn’t just persecute them because they persecuted Jesus, but for what they do after Jesus’ death.

Yes, but why can't that be the same as what Jesus did - challenge their authority, as he taught them? You reckon is some new disagreement to do with the resurrection, but this an assumption. You don't know what their beef was with the apostles, apart from Acts and - ok, if you trust it, it says why they are being persecuted. But to be fair, that is your reasoning: that resurrection is central to Christian thought so it has to be why the Authorities persecuted them. We know that wasn't why the Romans did it but because they would not tolerate sacrifice to the Imperial cult. Why is the same challenge to Authority not credibly the reason the disciples were targeted? Only your assumption, apart from what Acts says, or so you have said, I'd have to check.

You responded? I'll check back. And you shift the goalposts or strawman that argument. The point is not that other options refute the Lord claim, but there are other explanations, more useful than liar or lunatic (not that those can be ruled out) and that debunks 'Lord' as the the only credible option. Thus Lewis' apologetic proposition fails. I don't recall it was me, rather than you talking of derailments and off topic. Though I may be thinking of the Other thread we are debating. Just now I couldn't find the Gospel contradictions I thought I posted here, where did you respond?

I think you shared that in trilemma thread, but I’m not positive.

I'll ave a look, but we might have to do it again, here.

We are talking of what Jesus supposedly said to the strict -Law Sadducees, aren't we? If Jesus had quoted a Greek mistranslation at them he'd be discredited to everyone. Just as Matthew is by saying that Jesus did that. And as I say, Matthew is the only one to say so. Debate all you like but I say the evidence is that Matthew made it up.

No, yours does fail because Jesus was making a point to the Sadducees and if he'd used a Greek mistranslation to validate a point to them, they would slam back that his quote is not what's in the Scriptures. But of course it was written by Greek Christians, so they see nothing wrong with it and the Sanhedrin makes no reply. This stuff was invented by Greek Christians to fool people into belief, and it has worked very well.

We are talking of what Matthew wrote to his Greek audience relaying when Jesus responded to the Sadduccees. People back then were okay with quotes not being verbatim, just as long as they were accurate in the teaching. That wouldn’t mean that Jesus used the Septuagint or Greek with the Sadducees.

Then it sounds like you agree with me - Jesus didn't say it like that (if at all) and Matthew got it wrong. I don't know how that would work with him hearing Jesus (it is supposed) and then mistranslating it for his Greek readers. At least it means he didn't know his OT material as a Jew should. Remember also the two donkeys shows he couldn't have been there. It is the question of which is most likely - he mangled the events even though he heard and saw them, or he never actually saw them or reliably reported someone who did.

Yes, that one. Mathew 21.16. So far as I have seen nobody else has it. Even though Mark and Luke write the other stuff there and even John has the ride to the Temple.

Okay, so it is the only one with that story. Why is that a problem?

Because Mark and Luke (not John of course, as all this 'Temple wrangle' material is unknown to him) recount the same events and neither of them report that remark. Just as Luke doesn't mention the cursing of the fig tree and (as I mentioned elsewhere) they don't mention the penitent thief. Of course you will deny it. but the best explanation (so I argue) for a lot of these omissions is not because they ALL forgot it or thought it wasn't important, but that someone made it up.

But that is the claim, not the evidence for the claim. The 'evidence' is four conflicting stories that ought to have been thrown in the gutter long ago. Mark does not even have one, and that should be the clue (though I missed it for a long time) that originally there was only the empty tomb and a claim that of course Jesus resurrected. I know that for 2,000 years the Experts have fiddled the cherry - picked quotes into one narrative (lust as they did with the nativities) and sold it to the public as a coherent narrative. Well, you can profess belief, but it'll come down to who is talking the facts and who is excusing them. If the people will hear and listen, not what you or I believe or dismiss.

Mark doesn’t claim a resurrection? Or doesn’t have a resurrection? I’m missing something here.

You are - like what I actually said. An empty tomb and a claim that Jesus resurrected. Mark has the angelic message (John doesn't) and no appearances of Jesus after that. Again, deny and excuse it, but to me it is strong reason to think the three stories - which contradict and differ - were invented to put that lack right.

However, point is that I Cor, looks like Paul did not see the resurrection as in the gospels, but in his head, frankly. A spirit - image and not a solid body with holes in. Given that the I Cor list of witnesses does not resemble the gospels, isn't there a case that they too were seeing spirit Jesus in the head and Paul saw no difference between his imaginary Jesus and theirs?

I don’t think so because of what Paul talks about in the rest of 1 Cor 15. There Paul connects the resurrected body to the previous body; it’s not something entirely different and new. The same body of flesh will be transformed into a new, spiritual body. It’s not a spirit-image, but about the kind of life and activity the same (glorified) body has.

I Think it says something else. The solid body dies; the spirit is resurrected (15. 44) The implication is that Jesus body was dead, but his spirit had been raised and could be accessed by the imagination, which is apparently how Jesus appears to Paul, and arguably that is the appearances to the other in 1 Cor. Especially since the visions of I Cor 15. 5-9 do not match the Gospel accounts, and of course they don't match each other and Mark does not have any. That's my evidence for MY 'thesis' and it explains (and fits) the evidence and really, yours doesn't.

Not quite. I asked you to validate the claim that the disciples were 'persecuted' because they would not say the resurrection didn't happen. Your 'Thesis' is that the disciples were persecuted, the resurrection was important to them, so of course that was why they were persecuted. It fails because that may seem 'clearly' obvious to you but that is not the same as the Bible saying so. You point to Acts, but Acts is a work of fiction As indeed much of the gospels.

Not quite. In an earlier post I tried to clarify what you were asking for, because it seemed like you asked me for what the Bible claims, but you also talked about how you don’t trust the Biblical documents. I wasn’t going to say what the Bible claims if you were just going to say, but those can’t be trusted anyway. But then you said “To quote some other apologists: ‘It does not say so in the Bible.” I was directly responding to that claim. My support for that doesn’t fail because I point to Acts because Acts is in the Bible.

concedo. I was clear (or I thought I was) that once one had changed 'die for a lie' (which it seems you agree can't be credibly evidenced) to 'persecuted for a lie', the only support for this is Acts, and yes, (pending a check) that puts the resurrection as the motive for persecution. That said, I have to say that I contest Acts as valid evidence for the actuality of the claim that the persecution was because the disciples preached resurrection. Though if threatening to do for the Authority of the Sanhedrin was the reason for the persecution (which Paul attests to) Jesus' return (rather than being seen resurrected) could factor into that. That's my suggestion, anyway.

But the point is that it supposedly proves it was true, because to believe it they must have seen it.

That was never my point. I even explicitly said the opposite.

I don't remember that at all, I am sure that. although you agree there is no good evidence the disciples died rather than deny they had seen the resurrection as in the gospels - that's the point; not belief in a Jesus in their imagination - you argue that they were persecuted because they would not recant the resurrection - specifically (as I recalled you shifted to the one they believed, which is not necessarily the same) the solid body resurrection as recounted in the gospels - other than in Mark

That he is preaching against the Mosaic Law (specifically circumcision), and if he was not, he would not be persecuted. I explained that already. Paul and his persecutions is not about preaching resurrection but preaching about the Jewish Law is not needed to be God's peoples.

I’m asking why Paul would say that “in that case the offense of the cross has been abolished”. The cross isn’t a symbol of preaching against the Mosaic Law or circumcision. Paul is saying he is not only preaching against circumcision as required for salvation but preaching for the cross as what brings salvation. Both elements are directly tied together and the reason he is being persecuted.

Yes, but here's the distinction. Paul is preaching the cross as the way Jesus overcame sin without the Law. This is clear in Romans and we can look if you want. The cross is the reason or validation of why Paul preaches against the mosaic Law, initially just excusing Gentiles, but I believe later also for Jews. This is why he was being 'persecuted'. My thought is the Jews and authorities didn't care about people believing in a messiah, a resurrected messiah or a claim they saw a resurrected messiah (which is why I reckon the Sanhedrin trial is nonsense) but it was teaching that Gentiles could become God's people; Jews, or as good as, without at least the Noahide observances, and those would only make them fit to serve the Jews when the Last Days came.
The seven Noahide laws as traditionally enumerated in the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 56a-b and Tosefta Avodah Zarah 9:4,[21] are the following:[22]

Not to worship idols.[23]
Not to curse God.
Not to commit murder.[24]
Not to commit adultery or sexual immorality.[25]
Not to steal.[26]
Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal.[27]
To establish courts of justice.[28] (Wiki)

This seems to be the basis of James' letter permitting Paul's mission.. But though Paul would have seen his mission justified thereby, the other Jews did not like Paul teaching that the Gentiles were God's people trough Jesusfaith without circumcision. Which seems the basis of the dispute, and still is.

[TRANSPONDER]

Further. this shows that Acts (trust it or not) does claim that the 'persecution' was because of preaching the resurrection

Acts 4.1 And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, 2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.

Even then, it does not say 'They were preachin that they had seen Jesus walking about after they had been told that e had died on the cross, and they knew it was he, because he showed the holes in his hands'. Or something like that. Because I don't deny that the apostles believed the resurrection and probably preached it. But was that the solid body resurrection as in the gospels? For the reasons I gave above, I don't think it is - it is a resurrection of the spirit and the body still lying in the tomb, or removed and taken to Galilee, for reburial, is of no importance anymore.

[The Tanager]

Yes, but why can't that be the same as what Jesus did - challenge their authority, as he taught them? You reckon is some new disagreement to do with the resurrection, but this an assumption. You don't know what their beef was with the apostles, apart from Acts and - ok, if you trust it, it says why they are being persecuted. But to be fair, that is your reasoning: that resurrection is central to Christian thought so it has to be why the Authorities persecuted them. We know that wasn't why the Romans did it but because they would not tolerate sacrifice to the Imperial cult. Why is the same challenge to Authority not credibly the reason the disciples were targeted? Only your assumption, apart from what Acts says, or so you have said, I'd have to check.

I’m not disagreeing that they challenged their authority. The point is that authority is challenged in specific ways. The way Jesus challenged their authority was through his teachings, including his claims to divinity and messiah-ship. His followers didn’t claim divinity or to be the Messiah themselves, but preached Jesus as the divine messiah who resurrected.

Then it sounds like you agree with me - Jesus didn't say it like that (if at all) and Matthew got it wrong. I don't know how that would work with him hearing Jesus (it is supposed) and then mistranslating it for his Greek readers. At least it means he didn't know his OT material as a Jew should.

Is it a mistranslation, though? Yes, ‘strength’ and ‘praise’ are different words, but in Psalm 8:2 the ‘strength’ comes from ‘mouths,’ which seems to fit very well with ‘praise’.

Remember also the two donkeys shows he couldn't have been there. It is the question of which is most likely - he mangled the events even though he heard and saw them, or he never actually saw them or reliably reported someone who did.

I’m not convinced this is a mangling of events. If there were two actual donkeys, I see no problem in some versions only including the donkey Jesus actually rode on and another one talking about how there were two actual donkeys, possibly because the one Jesus rode on was a young one.

But let’s even assume Matthew adds in an extra donkey to fit his understanding of Zech 9:9 (which supposedly matches some Jewish rabbis’ readings of the passage). I don’t see a big problem with changing a minor detail to make a theological connection when the intended audience wouldn’t have seen a problem with it. This doesn’t mean we can’t trust the author with bigger details and other points.

Because Mark and Luke (not John of course, as all this 'Temple wrangle' material is unknown to him) recount the same events and neither of them report that remark. Just as Luke doesn't mention the cursing of the fig tree and (as I mentioned elsewhere) they don't mention the penitent thief. Of course you will deny it. but the best explanation (so I argue) for a lot of these omissions is not because they ALL forgot it or thought it wasn't important, but that someone made it up.

I think the various explanations are equal because it could have been made up by one or left out by others because one must pick and choose what stories they will add to serve their agenda.

You are - like what I actually said. An empty tomb and a claim that Jesus resurrected. Mark has the angelic message (John doesn't) and no appearances of Jesus after that. Again, deny and excuse it, but to me it is strong reason to think the three stories - which contradict and differ - were invented to put that lack right.

Mark does have an empty tomb and resurrection in 16:5-6. That Mark originally doesn’t seem to have subsequent appearances of Jesus doesn’t matter, but it clearly implied them. Leaving off his story (written to Christians who would have not existed without someone telling the story) with the women being afraid to tell anyone (written in a time of persecution for Christians) is an excellent challenge to Christians who had to decide if the cost was worth it.

I Think it says something else. The solid body dies; the spirit is resurrected (15. 44) The implication is that Jesus body was dead, but his spirit had been raised and could be accessed by the imagination, which is apparently how Jesus appears to Paul, and arguably that is the appearances to the other in 1 Cor. Especially since the visions of I Cor 15. 5-9 do not match the Gospel accounts, and of course they don't match each other and Mark does not have any. That's my evidence for MY 'thesis' and it explains (and fits) the evidence and really, yours doesn't.

The physical/spiritual distinction isn’t about body/soul. Paul calls it a spiritual body, not just a spirit. The distinction is about the kind of life and activity in the body, of whether it is of the world’s way or God’s way.

As to the tradition Paul passes down, it’s a formalized list that doesn’t contradict the Gospel narratives, which don’t claim to be a record of every appearance.

concedo. I was clear (or I thought I was) that once one had changed 'die for a lie' (which it seems you agree can't be credibly evidenced) to 'persecuted for a lie', the only support for this is Acts, and yes, (pending a check) that puts the resurrection as the motive for persecution. That said, I have to say that I contest Acts as valid evidence for the actuality of the claim that the persecution was because the disciples preached resurrection. Though if threatening to do for the Authority of the Sanhedrin was the reason for the persecution (which Paul attests to) Jesus' return (rather than being seen resurrected) could factor into that. That's my suggestion, anyway.

I see no good reason to contest Acts as valid evidence for this claim.

Yes, but here's the distinction. Paul is preaching the cross as the way Jesus overcame sin without the Law. This is clear in Romans and we can look if you want. The cross is the reason or validation of why Paul preaches against the mosaic Law, initially just excusing Gentiles, but I believe later also for Jews. This is why he was being 'persecuted'. My thought is the Jews and authorities didn't care about people believing in a messiah, a resurrected messiah or a claim they saw a resurrected messiah (which is why I reckon the Sanhedrin trial is nonsense) but it was teaching that Gentiles could become God's people; Jews, or as good as, without at least the Noahide observances, and those would only make them fit to serve the Jews when the Last Days came.
The seven Noahide laws as traditionally enumerated in the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 56a-b and Tosefta Avodah Zarah 9:4,[21] are the following:[22]

Not to worship idols.[23]
Not to curse God.
Not to commit murder.[24]
Not to commit adultery or sexual immorality.[25]
Not to steal.[26]
Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal.[27]
To establish courts of justice.[28] (Wiki)

This seems to be the basis of James' letter permitting Paul's mission.. But though Paul would have seen his mission justified thereby, the other Jews did not like Paul teaching that the Gentiles were God's people trough Jesusfaith without circumcision. Which seems the basis of the dispute, and still is.

The very reason Paul believes what he does and teaches what he does, though, is the resurrection. His teaching that Gentiles are included rests on the death and resurrection. His teaching is also that Jews must rest on Jesus’ death and resurrection to be included as well. As you say, Romans is clear that the way to overcome sin is the cross because Jesus is raised.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #32]
You always make this error; While quoting someone you set the

sign at the wrong place.
.

Now that makes your own answers appear in a box as if quoted.

Can you please work on that?