How Did Apostles Die?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

GoodGuy
It seems that non-believers find credibility in what they want to find
credible, and that is very unfortunate.

TILL
Of course, believers are never guilty of this. They are always completely
open-minded and objective. 

GOODGUY
First of all to say that the apostles,possibly did not exist shows much about
your depth of research in the area. Much of history is "a knowledge of the past
based upon testimony". If you dont believe the countless testimonies of the
apostles, eyewitnesses of the apostles, eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ,
historians, theologians, etc... I dont know what to say to you. 

TILL
Goodguy has cited no disinterested verification of the apostles' historicity.
In citing the "countless testimonies of the apostles, eyewitnesses of the
apostles, [and] eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ," he has presented Christian
propaganda as his evidence of the apostles' historicity. By the same line of
reasoning, a Hindu could prove the historicity of Krishna, and a Mormon could
prove the existence of the angel Moroni and the historicity of this angel's
appearances to Joseph Smith and the Mormon "witnesses." Goodguy referred also
to the "testimonies" of "historians," to which I can only say, "What
historians?" This is exactly what I am looking for, the testimony of
disinterested historians who verified the existence of the apostles. However, a
"historian" who lived after the time of the apostles cannot be accepted as
witnesses to the existence of the apostles, especially not if their "historical
testimony" relied only on Christian traditions and literature. What Goodguy
needs to present to make a convincing case for his position is some
disinterested confirmation from secular sources that these men whom Christians
call "apostles" actually did exist. As I stated in my article, "How Did the
Apostles Die?" the lives of these men, as claimed in the NT, was such that had
they actually existed, we could reasonably expect that some secular references
to at least some of their activities would have been made, but the fact is that
no such verification exists. Goodguy has nothing except Christian propaganda to
support his case, so in that respect his position is no stronger than that of a
Muslim who relies on the Qur'an to prove his position or a Hindu who relies on
the Vedas and Upanishads to prove his position. Goodguy also mentioned the
testimony of "theologians," but what did he mean by this? Was he referring to
the so-called "church fathers"? If so, he will have to do better than this. We
want to see disinterested historical verification. If he has such, let him show
it. 

GOODGUY
You would agree that Napolean lived, and you probably agree that you have never
seen him. You find countless testimony for Napolean credible but the thousands
of testimonies for Jesus Christ mean nothing to you? That is intellecual
suicide friend. 

TILL
Does Goodguy doubt for one moment that historians can point to disinterested
verification of Napoleon's existence? (Gee, as uneducated as I am, I still know
how to spell Napoleon.) By disinterested verification, I mean references to
Napoleon in secular records that were not published for the sole purpose of
venerating or honoring him or furthering his political aims. References to
Napoleon can be found in the records of nations that fought against this man in
the Napoleonic wars, but nothing has ever been found in secular contemporary
records about Jesus of Nazareth or his "apostles." If Goodguy can't see the
difference in the quality of the two types of evidence, then he needs more help
than I can give him. 

By coincidence, Michael Fisher sent a posting to the Errancy list just today
that shows the absurdity of trying to compare historical characters like Plato,
Socrates, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Napoleon to characters like
Jesus and the apostles. To save time, I will simply paste his comments below
and invite Goodguy's response. 

If it were to turn out that there never was a Plato, and that both Plato and
Socrates were the creations of some other individual, all the works attributed
to Plato would still be of philosophical importance. It is what is said in
those writings that is important, not who wrote them. If it turned out that
Julius Caesar was but a fictional heroic figure of Roman literature, other then
reprinting some history books, modern civilization would be utterly unaffected.

In spite of what you say below, it seems that the same cannot be said for the
Jesus of the gospels. It seems that, based on the way the events unfold, that
it is necessary both that a real physical Jesus actually lived and was who he
was claimed to be AND that the events described in the gospels unfolded at
least very nearly as described. 

I.e., the arguments in Plato's writings have whatever merit they have
independent of who wrote them; Rome conquered most of Europe and changed from a
republic to an autocracy whether the stories about Julius Caesar are true or
not. 

However, the Christians doctrines of redemption and salvation are nonsense if
the events described in the gospels did not in fact occur and happen to whom
they are alleged to have happened. 

Yet outside the hearsay of the Christian scriptural tradition, there is not a
bit of independent archaeological evidence that either the specific man lived
or that any of the events in fact occurred. 

One thing is certain: if no reliable historical evidence exists that shows the
martyrdom of men called "apostles" for their belief in the resurrection of a
savior-god, the argument that Goodguy has parroted is worthless. As I continue
my response in subsequent postings, I will show that there is no reliable
evidence to support Goodguy's claim. Who knows? I just may educate the guy a
bit. 

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net 

• Previous message: How Did Apostles Die?
• Next message: How Did Apostles Die?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]