Martyrdom 2

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

Hi Group! Hi Jason!



CARTER

Once again, I am amused (and saddened) at the total inability of those on
the list to accept basic historical information. For those of you lurkers
who do not want to sift through a long series of posts which score high in
the verbiage department but have little substance contained within, I have
summarized the entirety of the main skeptical arguments for you:

1.  "Yes, we want extra-biblical (hearsay) evidence to prove the historical
validity of the martyrdom accounts."

DAVE
   First of all, what we are asking for specifically are extra-*christian*
evidences that *support* the claim of  the martyrdom of the eleven apostles. It
is not unusual for a nation or a political party or even a religion to write
history in their favor whenever they have the chance so why should christianity
be any different? Since christianity *won* the battle between Mithraism and
itself for religious supremacy in Europe it would not be unreasonable for us to
question christianity's account of its founding fathers.

JASON

2.  "Uh, ok, you've given us extra-biblical evidence, but it's all hearsay!"

DAVE
   I realize that there is extra-*biblical* evidence but do you have any
extra-*christian* evidence? That would carry a lot more weight than obviously
partisan accounts. If you have extra-christian evidence present it so we can
evaluate it for what its worth. Hearsay evidence is not neccessarily bad
evidence but it certainly isn't as good as first hand eye-witnesses. I am sure
you know it is reasonable to be suspicious of "partisan" accounts.
A first hand eye-witness account by an opponent of christianty or an apparently
"disinterested" writer would be of great value.

JASON
3.  "Well, [insert person] actually believed in Jesus, therefore (logical
fallacy) he made up his historical report, and it is not admissible."

DAVE
   I am not sure what you are claiming here. Who claimed this? Could you cut and
paste the above argument from the context it was made in  and name the writer
who made it so I can better understand what is being said?

JASON
4.  "If the account was not witnessed PERSONALLY, even if it was written
within
a few YEARS of the event, (Ex. Clement(s)), it should not be considered as
evidence."

DAVE
   I think this is what the skeptics are looking for:
1) supporting evidence by either a) an opponent of christianity and/or b)an
apparently "disinterested" writer
2) consistency within the reports themselves (not beheaded in Chicago,
electrocuted in New York type jazz).
3) the account must be believeable (such as the flaming dragon in the apocryphal
Matthew story).
4) if a partisan source, then at least an eye-witness whose good character was
known and/or was not given to making things up. This will add weight to the
claim although he or she will still be considered "partisan" and as such it will
not be as powerful  a witness as an opponent of christianity. If character
cannot be established present him or her anyway.

JASON

(We can toss out all ancient historians on this matter to even further our
ignorance!)

DAVE
  Why would we have to throw out all historians? Because we ask you to provide
non-partisan accounts of the martydom of the disciples? Do you think historians
believe everything they read? Don't you know that historians are very much aware
that nations are prone to cheat regarding their military successes and such? Yet
they don't just throw up their hands and say "why bother?" You are taking an
alleged historical fact and using it as a premise to advance the belief that
Jesus rose from the dead. So you must be prepared to defend that premise. If the
premise is indefensible, then it will not inspire confidence. The resurrection
claim is an extraordinary event. So the premise that is used to support it must
be established beyond resonable doubt.

JASON

5.  "We demand someone who was "disinterested" in the apostles to write an
interested account of their death."

DAVE
   Who said this? What is wrong with asking for a non-partisan account of the
martrydoms?

JASON
6.  "Conflicting accounts means we can't be sure of anything!"

DAVE
   Conflicting accounts do cause us to be cautious. That is a justifiable
position. If someone said John was beheaded in Chicago and someone else said he
was incinerated in New York and yet soemone else claimed he died of an heart
attack at the age of 90 in Los Angeles we wouldn't be sure how he died. Why is
that an unreasonable position?

JASON

7.  "If any historian agrees that the majority of the apostles were
martyred (which is pretty much ALL OF THEM, BTW), I will simply disagree
with them, ask them to "trot out" pictures and video's of the occurance,
and when they cannot, we will do a little jig and declare that we have
shown that they were not martyred, or at least, we can wallow in our
ignorance without a sense of guilt."


DAVE
   A lot of your statments appeared to be made up. I have not heard any skeptic
make the claim you made above. Did any skeptic ask for a video clip? I don't
think so.

JASON

Sorry guys, this was one of the most pathetic attempts to disprove the
martyrdom accounts I have ever seen in my life. You'll notice, pretty much
every shred of evidence given from early and contemporary sources simply
_supports_ my thesis. Adding in hyper-critical questions does not dissolve
the potency of the evidence.

DAVE
   Jason is a Christian. Every shred of *Christian* evidence given from early
and contemporary sources _supports_the Christian thesis. Duh!

JASON

  (NOTE: BTW Crea, information 2000 years ago was not passed along by email
or CD or video. People had to rely upon oral tradition (since it was an
oral based society) for communication and transmission of history (for the
most part). But by God, we can't trust anything that is passed down through
tradition right?)

In Christ,
-Jason

DAVE
   Yes, we all know that *Christian* historians of the early years have evidence
of *christian* martydom. That is not at all surprising. Every religion and
nation or political party strives to write its own history to put itself in the
most positve light. Its ironic that no non-christian in those same years source
shows any knowledge of these martydoms. That is good reason to be a lttle
skeptical.

• Previous message: Martyrdom 2
• Next message: Martyrdom 2
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]