A little response to "How Did the Apostles Die?"

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

 	On the web page 
<A HREF="http://idt.net/~balboa19/lion/apostle/apostle03.html">[LION] How Did 
the Apostles Die?
</A> an article of yours is published.  As a Christian apologist I would like 
to refute a few of the claims you make in this paper. 
	First of all, I agree that many of the traditions of the apostle's 
martyrdoms are of too late a date to be taken seriously as historical 
narratives.  However, we still have the New Testament...
	You wrote, "The claim assumes the historical accuracy of the New 
Testament, which makes some scattered references to persecutions of early 
Christians (Acts 8:1;  11:19; 13:50; 2 Thess. 1:4), but if the accuracy of 
the  New Testament is to be assumed, then it would be pointless to debate any 
of the major apologetic claims,  because the New Testament does claim that 
Jesus was born  of a virgin, that he worked many miracles, that he was 
resurrected from the dead, that he ascended into heaven, etc. "
	First of all, with any historical document, we are to assume the 
writer is more or less telling the truth unless we have any proof to the 
contrary.  As for supernatural claims, those very claims (resurrection, etc.) 
are exactly what we are trying to give evidence for when we talk about the 
martyrdom of the Apostles.  You cannot reject those claims a priori and then 
say that their presence in the historical document casts doubt on any 
non-supernatural information contained in that document.  For example, the 
Qur'an, I believe, gives inaccurate information regarding supernatural 
things, but does give us good historical information about Muhammad's armies 
defeating the Arabians, etc.
	Anyhow, any good historian is willing to give these documents the 
benefit of the doubt, at the very least, on what they say regarding 
non-supernatural events.  In the historical document called 2 Corinthians, 
chapter 4 verses 8 through 12, Paul writes, "8
We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to 
despair; 
9
persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 
10
always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may 
also be made visible in our bodies. 
11
For while we live, we are always being given up to death for Jesus' sake, so 
that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our mortal flesh. 
12
So death is at work in us, but life in you."-NRSV
	Paul was writing to his friends.  He had no reason to lie or stretch 
the truth.  And we see here Paul (who once was a hated Christianity as you 
do) claiming that he underwent severe persecution for the sake of Christ.  
Now anyone who has ever been in such severe pain knows how it seems to be 
just as bad as, if not worse than, death.  And yet Paul believed in the 
Gospel so much that he was willing to endure such shame.
	You're familiar with Norman Geisler, aren't you?  His favorite Bible 
verse is, "For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain."-Philippians 1:21, 
NRSV.  This statement was written by Paul, again, showing his willingness to 
die for what he believed.
	Peter the Apostle also encouraged his brothers in Christ:  "Yet if 
any of you suffers as a Christian, do not consider it a disgrace..."-1 Peter 
4:16, NRSV.  Peter (not some pseudo-Peter) obviously wrote this epistle, 
based on chapter 5 verse 1, in which he calls himself, "A witness of the 
sufferings of Christ."  (Unless you reject this as well a priori.)  So we see 
that they were indeed willing to die for Christ.  Even if they did not die as 
martyrs, there is evidence here that they knew death was a possibility.
	In Revelation 2:13, Christ mentions "Antipas, my witness, my faithful 
one, who was killed amond you, where Satan lives."  Look also at Christ's 
words in verse 10, "Be faithful until death...".  It is obvious from this 
historical document written to actual late first century churches, that one 
could be put to death for the sake of Christ.  I also challenge you to read 
the epistle of Pliny to (I believe) Erasmus, in which he tells of how he had 
killed Christians and tortured deaconesses.  This was around 110 A.D., kind 
of late, I admit, but its not too much of a stretch to say that the 
persecution of Christians started before that.  (Another Roman writer of that 
time mentions Nero's scapegoating the Christians and killing them.)  I can 
get you the exact quotes later from a book I have.  (By the way, this book is 
not a Christian apologetics book; it is merely a translation of classic Roman 
documents.)
	And of course, it is most convenient for you to ignore the book of 
Acts as a historical document, (Even though the skeptic Ramsey proved Luke 
was accurate in everything he could check and was a skeptic until he checked 
out Luke.) so you could ignore the martyrdoms of Stephen and James.  However, 
the account of Stephen seems to ring of the truth, even by the standards of 
skeptics.  For example, Stephen uses the phrase, "Son of Man," in Acts 7:56, 
an obviously very early Christian phrase which all but vanishes from later 
New Testament discourses, except for a few mentionings in the book of 
Revelation.  
	And finally, you claimed, "To have a cogent argument, then, Christian 
apologists would have to prove the unprovable and  establish that the 
apostles did actually *know* that their  postresurrection experiences were 
real and not merely  psychological, and with all of the apostles long dead,  
there is no way that any apologist could do this. "
	Even if the apostles were alive, such a thing would still be 
"unprovable" if what you are looking for is absolute certainty.  For example, 
if I told you that I hit a double once when I played little league baseball, 
I could only offer you witnesses.  There would always be the slight 
possibility that all of us imagined this.  The Apostles and their associates 
have left us documents giving us good evidence that their experiences were 
not subjective.  Even if you went back in a time machine and interviewed them 
all, you still could not get anything more or less conclusive than what we 
have already.  (2 Peter 1:16:  "We did not follow cleverly devised myths when 
we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ...")  
That's what faith is; jumping the gap from highly probable to absolutely 
certain.
   We also have corroboration of Paul's testimony, in that 1.) Ananias in 
Acts 9:11 was divinely sent to help Paul, and 2.)  Paul seemed to get the 
Gospel right without any mere man teaching him (Galatians 1:12.), and the 
other main Apostles accepted him, (2 Peter 3:15, etc.)
	I know about you, Mr. Till, and I know that you have hardened your 
heart to the things of God.  However, I will still pray for you.  I know this 
may sound rather trite, but I do love you, Mr. Till.  I know that Christ 
still loves you.  Thank you for reading this e-mail, and I wish you blessings 
in the name of Jesus Christ.

Cordially,



theo2217 (Revelation 22:17)

• Previous message: A little response to "How Did the Apostles Die?"
• Next message: A little response to "How Did the Apostles Die?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]