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

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

At 12:00 PM 7/24/99 -0700, you wrote:

THEO

> 	On the web page 

><A HREF="http://idt.net/~balboa19/lion/apostle/apostle03.html">[LION] How Did 

>the Apostles Die? 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. 

TILL
Well, we certainly welcome those who allege that they are "Christian
apologists" to the list.  We even hope that someday, one of them will
actually turn out to be an apologist.  So far, none of them has.

THEO

>	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...


TILL
So Theo has wasted no time in getting started on the favorite course that
"Christian apologists" pursue.  He is already begging the question of the
historical accuracy of the NT.  Doesn't he realize that if the historical
accuracy of the NT were granted, there would be no debate on 99% of the
issues that are discussed on this list.  If the NT is historically accurate,
then there is no question that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified, and
resurrected from the dead, and there is no question that the apostles were
transformed into bold proclaimers of the resurrection, whereas some of them
at least had been cowards and doubters.  On this list, however, we do not
assume the historical accuracy of the NT, and it is precisely because most
of us question the accuracy of the NT that issues like the resurrection,
biblical miracles, prophecy fulfillment, etc. are fulfilled.  If I thought
that the NT was historically accurate, I'd close down this list and take a
long vacation.

THEO

>	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	First of all, with any historical document, we are to assume the 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. 


TILL
Oh, we are?  Do you assume that about the Book of Mormon?  The Qur'an?  The
Bhagavad-gita of the Hindus?  The Avesta of the Zoroastrians?  If not, why not?

Do you assume that king Mesha's inscription on the Moabite Stone "is more or
less the truth"?  If not, why not?  

THEO

> 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.


TILL
But you can accept these claims "a priori" and then say that their presence
in the "historical document" proves that the Bible is divinely inspired?
Does that just about summarize your view of the Bible?

THEO

> 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.


TILL
Your statement about the Qur'an can't be evaluated, because it is too
abstract.  You gave us no specific examples of what you claim is "inaccurate
information" in the Qur'an and no specific examples of "good historical
information" about Muhammad's armies.  Please try to remember that more
exactness will be required if you expect us to reply to your postings.

If I gave you specific examples of "inaccurate information" in the Bible,
what would you say that this does to your apparent belief that it is the
"word of God"?

THEO

>	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.


TILL
This shows how very little you know about historiography.  Historians do not
automatically assume that an ancient document is telling the truth unless
there are reasons to suspect otherwise.  The information in ancient
documents is subjected to very rigorous methods of evaluation to try to
determine if there are sufficient reasons to accept the information as
historical fact. What serious historiography would accept as historical fact
that the emperor Vespasian healed a blind man and a man with a withered
hand, just because both Tacitus and Vespasian reported that he did in their
historical writings?   I'm afraid you have been reading too many Josh
McDowellian apologetic works.

At this point, Theo began an attempt to prove that the apostles suffered
martyrdom and other persecutions for preaching the "gospel," so I will stop
here and answer that part later.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

• 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 ]