Disciples weren't lying because they were tortured

174 posts / 0 new
Last post
MCDennis's picture
You can show there is a first

You can "show there is a first cause"?? Please tell us more. Please show us that there is a first cause, and in doing so please prove that the universe must have a cause and that it has not always existed in one form or another. Ready? Go

Dave Matson's picture
It's poppycock because the

It's poppycock because the historical basis for such claims is either missing altogether or serious distorted to the point of unreliability. The argument is a house sitting on quicksand.

BAACKJD's picture
You're coming from the

You're coming from the perspective that the bible is fact. I don't share that perspective so this may be a fruitless conversation.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
One of the biggest ideas of

One of the biggest ideas of this site is to debate, hence "Debate an Atheist". To debate means that people come to debate different perspectives to talk about ideas. So just because we have different perspectives doesn't mean we shouldn't have a conversation, quite the contrary!

MCDennis's picture
This is a weird post. From

This is a weird post. From everything I have read, there is a conversation. What are you referring to specifically because I missed it.

BAACKJD's picture
Unkown,

Unkown,

What kind of research are you doing exactly? What is the ultimate objective of your questions?

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
I have been surrounded by

I have been surrounded by Christianity my whole life. My only experience with atheists is one or three friends and atheist websites and their arguments. I just want to grasp different opinions from different people.

Dave Matson's picture
Unknown:

Unknown:

Serious scholars have long ago figured out that the Gospels are not historical narratives. No answer is necessary since we are not dealing with bits of preserved history, much less eyewitness accounts.

CyberLN's picture
First, provide evidence that

First, provide evidence that these disciples actually existed. Second, if you can do that, then provide evidence they wrote the stuff in your holy book for which they are given credit. Third, if you manage to accomplish the first two items, provide evidence of this torture.

In other words, unknown, your OP is built on the sand of assumption and is simply falling down. You want discussion? Bring something sturdier to the table.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
Proof of authorship, thus

Proof of authorship, thus existance
1. "Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia". This is evidence that, not only they apostles existed, but that they wrote the gospels.
2. Two friends of the apostle John confirm the internal evidence from John’s accounts. The historian Eusebius preserves writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (AD 130). [6 p. 54]. "The Elder [apostle John] used to say this also: “Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter … So then Mark made no mistake … for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to include any false statements among them."
3. Iraneus, Bishop of Lyons in AD 180, who was a student of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (who had been a Christian for eighty-six years and was a disciple of John the Apostle), wrote [6 p. 54]

Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews [i.e. Jews] in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure [i.e. death, which strong tradition places at the time of the Neronian persecution in 64], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His breast [this is a reference to John 13:15 and 21:20], himself produced his gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.

Persecution included that of:
1. Ignatius (AD 70-110). He was Bishop of Antioch and was martyred for his faith in Christ. He knew all the apostles and was a disciple of Polycarp. Ignatius is said to have been thrown to the lions in the colosseum at Rome. He had ample material and witnesses to discover scriptural trustworthiness, and the fact that he was prepared to die for his faith, supports the reliability of the Scripture (the New Testament documents) on which his faith rested. (A Ready Defense, Josh McDowell, Here's Life Publishing, Inc., San Bernardino, CA 92402 page 437) (Evidence That Demands A Verdict Volume 1, Josh McDowell, Here's Life Publishing, Inc., San Bernardino, CA 92402 page 51)
2. Polycarp (AD 70-156) was a disciple of John and was martyred at 86 years of age because of his relentless devotion to Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. He was burned at the stake. His death demonstrated his trust in the accuracy of the Scripture as he certainly had ample contacts to know the truth. (A Ready Defense, Josh McDowell, Here's Life Publishing, Inc., San Bernardino, CA 92402 page 437) (Evidence That Demands A Verdict Volume 1, Josh McDowell, Here's Life Publishing, Inc., San Bernardino, CA 92402 page 51)
3. I cannot find any sources explicit to that of individual apostles death. But there was Roman persecution and the exact time of Paul and Peter in the Roman empire, especially with Nero. You may no believe that they were martyrs, but you cannot deny that there was persecution during 1st century, and the threat that these people faced.

Nyarlathotep's picture
UnKnown - This is evidence

UnKnown - This is evidence that, not only they apostles existed, but that they wrote the gospels.

Right there is where I stopped taking you seriously:

Wikipedia - According to the majority viewpoint, [Matthew] is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.

Wikipedia - Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.

Wikipedia - The most probable date for [Gospel of Luke's] composition is around 80–100 AD, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.

Wikipedia - In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
So you would rely on

So you would rely on 'Wikipedia", but not primary and secondary sources?

Nyarlathotep's picture
UnKnown - So you would rely

UnKnown - So you would rely on 'Wikipedia", but not primary and secondary sources?

That is just the point: get this through your head; the Gospels are not primary sources. There is not a single primary source for the character of Jesus.

ThePragmatic's picture
Exactly: The Bible is a

Exactly: The Bible is a primary source, like this napkin is a primary source:

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
The message of the bible

The message of the bible alone (the physical words written down and said) have no authority by itself, like the 'Napkin Religion'. It is the miracles that were done by the disciples that confirmed the message that was said. The miracles done by Jesus prove that what Jesus was saying is true. The question now is, what extra-biblical sources confirm that Jesus did this miracles. I think you can find that stuff out for yourselves.

Dave Matson's picture
Unknown:

Unknown:

We have no extra-biblical sources to confirm the supposed miracles Jesus did! That's the problem!

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
1. Thallus records darkness,

1. Thallus records darkness, even when there was no chance of it happening. (I know that there is evidence against its reliability, so just bring it out)
2. Lack of literary skill by the common populace
3. Jesus lived in a remote corner in the Roman world
4. Magic was common-ish (preists, superstition, story-telling of magic etc.) If they had heard of a magician in the middle of nowhere, it would be highly unlikely that they would've recorded it
5. Babylon Talmud (late 1st or second century) - "On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray"

curtisabass's picture
5. This refers to Yeshu ha

5. This refers to Yeshu ha Notzri who was executed around 100 BC. He was an Essene and may have been part of the prototype of the Jesus myth.

algebe's picture
@Unknown: "The miracles done

@Unknown: "The miracles done by Jesus prove that what Jesus was saying is true."

OK. The wine thing at the Wedding at Cana was in a private house. The walking on water was in an unpopulated area in a storm. So these miracles might not have been noticed by anyone else. But the Sermon on the Mount was a big event with 5,000 people. Jesus used his replicator powers to provide bread and fish for all of them. I think the authorities, either Jewish or Roman, would have noticed that. Where are the independent eyewitness reports? Similarly, the healing of lepers and the raising of Lazarus would have attracted attention. Someone who could do those things would have been in great demand among the rich and famous. Why wasn't Jesus summoned to Rome?

Nyarlathotep's picture
AlgebeSimilarly, the healing

Algebe: Similarly, the healing of lepers and the raising of Lazarus would have attracted attention.

You know what would have really attracted attention? The Walking Dead show in Jerusalem:

Matthew 27, 51-53: At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
1. We have limited accounts

1. We have limited accounts from the first century.
2. It says 'many'. It could mean 10-1000.
3. "They...appeared to many people". It doesn't mean they were recognized. Jesus, after his resurrection, walked and talked with two apostles for a while. They didn't recognize him until he left. Just because other people saw them, doesn't mean other people recognized them.
4. After Lazarus came back, the Teachers of the Law went of to plot on how to kill him because many people went off to believe in Jesus after Lazarus' resurrection. The Teachers of the Law also paid soldiers to keep quiet about Jesus coming back to life. Do you think they would also put the resurrection of others if they actually have had occurred?

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
1. We have limited accounts

1. We have limited accounts from the first century.
2. It says 'many'. It could mean 10-1000.
3. "They...appeared to many people". It doesn't mean they were recognized. Jesus, after his resurrection, walked and talked with two apostles for a while. They didn't recognize him until he left. Just because other people saw them, doesn't mean other people recognized them.
4. After Lazarus came back, the Teachers of the Law went of to plot on how to kill him because many people went off to believe in Jesus after Lazarus' resurrection. The Teachers of the Law also paid soldiers to keep quiet about Jesus coming back to life. Do you think they would also put the resurrection of others if they actually have had occurred?

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
1. They may have thought that

1. They may have thought that Jesus already had the food, and was produced in a non-miracle manner. The only people who knew about the 'replicator powers' were the disciples. Normally, if a crowd is amazed by Jesus, it would say, however it leaves no indication that they 5000 people knew.
2. Stories of miracles were so common that they were told by paid storytellers around the dinner table of the rich. They were a dime-a-dozen.
3. Jesus doing miracles is mentioned in non-christian ancient stories. Just because this story isn't mentioned specifically doesn't mean it didn't happen.

algebe's picture
@Unknown: "They may have

@Unknown: "They may have thought that Jesus already had the food, and was produced in a non-miracle manner"

Maybe all those people thought Jesus had 5,000 fishes and loaves stuffed down his robe. Maybe the people weren't there. Maybe Jesus wasn't there. Maybe somebody made it all up a couple of generations later. This exaggeration of the number of people who turned up to listen to someone make a speech reminds me of something that happened quite recently.

"Just because this story isn't mentioned specifically doesn't mean it didn't happen."

Just because this story is mentioned in the gospels, doesn't mean it did happen.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
All I'm saying is: Normally,

All I'm saying is: Normally, if Jesus did a miracle that the crowds knew of, it would have been recorded that they 'were amazed' or some other hint that they knew that it was a miracle. There is no recording of this, a.k.a, the crowd didn't know it was a miracle. "They may have thought that Jesus already had the food, and was produced in a non-miracle manner" - I was suggesting what the crowds MAY have been thinking. "Just because this story is mentioned in the gospels, doesn't mean it did happen." - There are reason to suggest they weren't lying. The question of whether they were persecuted is the point of this forum.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ UnKnown

@ UnKnown

- "It is the miracles that were done by the disciples that confirmed the message that was said."

But doesn't that mean that what you're saying is that, if the napkin religion had included writing that claimed that someone did miracles that confirms that the napkin religion is valid, it would have authority?

In what way does the Bible have any credibility for any of it's supernatural claims?

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
If both religions (Napkin and

If both religions (Napkin and Christianity) said that miracles were used, we need to know whether they were lying or not.
Threat of Persecution:
1. Napkin: I'm going to assume not
2. Christianity: I think yes, but debate is going on whether persecution during the time of the initial spreading of Christianity 1st century
What could they stand to gain:
1. Napkin: The napkin doesn't ask for anything.
2. Christianity: What was spread was to give rather than take. They taught to do good works, not to lie, murder etc. The only people whom they harmed was those who lied to God about how much they gave. Lies were made for self gain, this wasn't
Outside sources:
1. Napkin: All that supports the napkin religion, is the napkin
2. Christianity:
a. Thallus records darkness, even when there was no chance of it happening (wasn't expected).
b. Babylon Talmud (late 1st or second century) - "On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray". Talmud is basically the Jews writing history. It also mentions Jesus doing miracles in another section.
c. Other pagan sources also tell that Jesus did miracles.

ThePragmatic's picture
I doth protest.

I doth protest.

- "Threat of Persecution... ...2. Christianity: I think yes"

If there has been a religion, they have been persecuted by other religions or by political power. It's as simple as that. Threat of persecution does not provide anything for the credibility of Christianity or the Bible.

- "What could they stand to gain... ....2. Christianity: What was spread was to give rather than take."

Depending on the version of Christianity, it is everything from friendly and helpful, to despicable and vile. But the same goes for most religions. And Buddhism is hardly more credible because it is friendly?
This does not provide anything for the credibility of Christianity or the Bible.

- "Outside sources... ...2. Christianity: a... b... c..."

That others wrote down something about Christianity a hundred years after everything supposedly happened is hardly evidence that it happened. As you agreed to (with Nyarlathotep below), there are no contemporary sources.
The Bible has no more credibility than the Quran, or the scriptures for any other religion.

To prove supernatural events, you need a lot more than someone writing it down several hundred years ago. Otherwise, we would just have to assume that most religions are true.

Joshua Thanopoulos's picture
1. It proves that the authors

1. It proves that the authors weren't lying. They didn't give under pressure, and, even if they themselves personally weren't persecuted, they still went, despite the risk of being killed/tortured.
2. When people lie, they do so selfishly, to gain wealth or other things of that nature (Prosperity Gospel). They, however, did not. They had nothing gain and everything to lose in spreading the gospel. They didn't lie in writing it.
3.
a. It was written down before 100 CE.
b. At most 150 years
c. Mostly within 100 years
"we would just have to assume that most religions are true". Well the sources written down about the miracles were claimed to be true by writers of the religion with wealth and power to gain. A.K.A, they were lying. Historically 100 years isn't much time.

ThePragmatic's picture
1 & 2: Sorry, but it doesn't

1 & 2: Sorry, but it doesn't prove anything.
   - Your assumtion that they would speak the truth in that situation is not proof.
   - Your assumtion that the texts are true is not proof.
   - Even if they didn't lie, they could believe in it without it being true.
3:
   a: What exactly was written 100 before CE? Events of Jesus?
   b: I rest my case.
   c: I rest my case.

- "Well the sources written down about the miracles were claimed to be true by writers of the religion with wealth and power to gain. A.K.A, they were lying."

I'm not sure I understand, but I assume you are referring to "other religions" here.

Again, you assume. This time that they were lying, but your religion didn't.
Your personal version of Christianity may be a good and friendly version, but Christianity has been an enormous force for political power and wealth. It has been just as much of a religion of war as the worst interpretations of Islam, but you just give your own religion a free pass as a benign religion?
Even though it's not like in historic times, both war and terrorism in the name of Christianity continue in modern times, but Christians seem to ignore that fact and just focus on Islam.
There are countries that in effect are Christian Theocracies today (and the U.S. seems to be in jeopardy of becoming yet another one).

- "Historically 100 years isn't much time."

Well, that statement is irrelevant.
If there are no contemporary source, there are no contemporary sources.

I'm just as much in question as I was before:
"In what way does the Bible have any credibility for any of it's supernatural claims?"

The answer, as far as I can see, is that it doesn't. It lacks credibility just as other religious scriptures. Even if a few passages are proven to be historically correct, it is not proof of supernatural events, much less a god and creator of the Universe!

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.