RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

The Chester Beatty Papyrus dates from the early 3rd Century AD.Tatian's Harmony was written only a few decades earlier - about 170 AD.The contents of cave 7 at Qumran are hard to identify but they include probably fragments of 1 Enoch, Exodus (Septuagint) and Jeremiah.This site deals with the fragments identified as coming from 1 Enoch - including 7Q5.http://www.breadofangels.com/7qenoch/index.htmlHow does any of this justify your:

Post 16 only makes it more confusing. The original post said nothing about 2nd and 3rd century documents so two of your three examples are completely irrelevant.As for cave 7 of Qumran if you believe that it is settled that it contained any NT documents then I am afraid that you are less than fully informed. That is still very much a fringe view.

The question is not the dating of the 7Q fragments. It is the identification of which texts they have come from.There IS no "blanket rejection" of the evidence, simply a dispute over which books are represented in the fragments. These are very small fragments (7Q5 has *one* complete word on it - "kai"). Identifying the source - when it may not even be a document we know - is obivously very difficult.

You are absolutely wrong. As I stated it is only a minority opinion that they are NT documents AT ALL. The best suggestion for 7Q5 appears to be 1 Enoch. NOT Mark and certainly not Matthew (and so far as I knwo nobody has EVER suggested that identification). The dating is NOT AN ISSUE for the 7Q fragments. IDENTIFICATION IS>Obviously you have not been paying attention ot what I have been saying, let alone checking the links I provided or you would already know that. I explicitly stated that it was identiifcation not dating that was the question.And you have yet to explain the relevance of the Chester Beatty Papyrus (after 200 AD) or Tatian's Harmony (writte 170 AD)..

Speaking as a Brit I have no idea what you mean by a "101" "cobbler".On the other hand your answer is what we would describe as "cobblers" - i.e. complete rubbish.It certainly is in dispute and there is no clear evidence that even MOST of the disciples were martyred. And even if they were martyred it is far from certain that they had the opportunity to recant. The onus is on you to back up your claims - not for others to disprove them. If there are no reliable sources we do not have to treat the sources we do have as if they were reliable.

There are many things that "everybody knows" but which are not true or are very doubtful. Truly educated and honest people know that. Clearly you do not and therefore label those who question what "everybody knows" as uneduicated or dishonest when in ffact the reverse is true.If you really have *evidence* that all the apostles were martyred then I suggest that you produce it. And be sure to add evidence that they had the opportunity to recant and save their lives. For instance in the persecution under Nero according to Roman sources Nero simply wanted scapegoats for the great fire in Rome. Religion was not the issue. Tacitus says: http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html
(Book 15 dealing with the events of 62-65 AD).Now let me add that number of sources is NOT the issue. Quality is far more important. And the *existence* of a person is a differnet issue than the events of their lives or deaths. Even Tacitus' reports of Nero are suspect since Tacitus is so clearly hostile to Nero. And of course we know that George Washington was a historical figure while not placing credence in the legend about the cherry tree,For Alexander the Great we have a large amount of archaeological evidence - and cities named Alexandria by him. Just think of what a denial of Alexander's conquests would mean ! Alexander conquered Egypt and Persia and those areas continued to be ruled by his followers and their descendants for long after his death. How do you explain the arrival of Hellenic culture without Alexander ?For Julius Caesar we have ample literary evidence - including his own works. And let us not forget the numismatic evidence - the ocins from his reign.For Paul Revere we have plenty of evidence that he existed - but the usual story of his famous ride is not entirely accurate.
( Allinfoabout.com )Now if you want to see "clowning" how about this : What this says is that if we don't have any credible evidence concerning how they died we have to assume that they were martyed for their report of the Resurrection. Well I'd say that Tacitus' report - since it covers the most likely setting for the death of Peter (and Paul - who was not a witness to the Resurrection at all) - represents evidence as good as any we do have. And the Resurrection is simply not an issue there.If you have credible evidence that they WERE martyred expressly for their report of the Resurrection then I usggest you produce it.So lets start. How and when did John die and what supporting evidence do you have ?

Well, well well, you can't even deal accurately with what was said in the thread.When you mentioned "three famous people" I pointed out some of the evidence for their existence - as you asked, and it covered just basic knowledge. I also pointed out that we do NOT accept every story told about them simply because we know that they exist AND pointed out that there are stories that "everyone knows" whihc are inaccurate (Paul Revere's ride) or fictional (George Washington and the cherry tree).I also provided evidence relevent to the tradition of martyrdom associated with Peter which indicated that your assertion that recanting Christianity or denying the Resurrection was not at all what those responsible for the execution were after. A confession of involvement in the great fire in Rome would have been more to the point.I also specifically asked you to provide evidence for the martyrdom of John - showing that it happened and that it met your description. I asked knwoing full well that if you bother to research John you will find statements like "no tradition of martyrdom". That's right. The "evidence" that John was martyred falls short of even the weak evidence - stories that do not appear to centuries after the supposed event - for some of the other disciples.It is absolutely false to say that "The text of evidence says the apostles/disciples each died alone, horribly, for preaching /reporting the Resurrection."It is also absolutely false to claim that just because "everyone knows" something you do not need to provide evidence to support it. That is especially true when you are making claims about the evidence that are totally untrue. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the reason you do not want to provide evidence is that you are not familiar with it and that you do not know what the evidence REALLY says. So why try to pretend otherwise ? Why run this bluff ? Why try to pass off an unsupported opinion as "checkmate evidence" ?

There certainly are questions and evidence that you have yet to answer.And it is quite clear that either you do not *know* anything about this "evidence" you are talking about - and that you are trying to conceal that. Or alternatively you know that what you have been saying is not true - and you will not admit that.So you are falsely accusing others of dishonesty while behaving less than honestly yourself. And THAT speaks for itself.

The revisionism is coming from YOUR side. Your "checkmate evidence" is a fabrication. Prove me wrogn if you can. Produce evidence that the disciple John was martyred, that he was martyred FOR preaching the Resurrection and that he could save himself by recanting. I know that you have no such evidence and I am sure that you also know that.

Actually the martyrdom of the apostles isn't a detail of the Bible. There's a definite shortage of martyrdom stories in the NT.There is Stephen's death in Acts but he isn't an apostle. Acts also mentions James' death - although James is another latecomer and not a witness of the Resurrection. Peter's death is hinted at in John.THere doesn't seem to be much else. And as I have stated for John there is not even a late tradition, as there is for other apostles.The claim that all the apostles were martyred is simply not supported by the evidence - and that is why Willowtree doesn't produce evidence for the martyrdom of the apostles.

[REPLACED in EDIT]
OK, so John WASN'T martyred. One down. How about the rest of them. How about dealing with the evidence I produced from Tacitus ? How about producing sources describing the martyrdoms, showing that they are reliable and that they actually back up your claims (none of the ones *I* have seen have been specifically focussed on the Resurrection - and for many of the apostles it isn't even certain WHERE or WHEN they died).Try this link - to a very conservative site that is clearly biased in favour of views at least similar to yours:Amazing Bible Timeline with World History – Easily See 6017 Years of Biblical and World History Together!Some examples:Matthew "There is a legend that he died a martyr in Ethiopia"Simon the Canaanite "No information either in the Bible or by tradition. "Philip "No information either in the Bible or by tradition."Without a proper discussion of the historical sources you have nothing. ANd that is why your refusal to discuss the evidence is so damning. As for your false accusations of dishonesty raised against people who dare to disagree with you - I am disgusted but not surprised. [END REPLACEMENT]And I really do suggest that you try to understand both the posts you are answering and the subject matter. I never claimed that Alexander *created* the Greek culture - however he did do a lot to *spread* it, by conquering so much of the world. And don't underestimate Alexander himself - he had Aristotle as a tutor. As for the Greek culture - that was mainly Greek - not copied from Egypt.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-12-2004]

Well it's quite obvious what you are doing. You know that we DON'T know how the apostles died and so you are refusing to provide the evidence to back up your claims while demanding that that others refute them - knowing full well that the evidence does not exist to do either.You lie about the points made against you - nobody has questioned the existence of the apostles. They HAVE questioned your version of their deaths.NOBODY has produced significant evidence about the deaths of the apostles because there ISN'T ANY. Everyone else in this thread is being honest on that front. Except you.And I've yet to see any evidence that worshipping Caesar was a get-out-of-jail free card in Roman society. Please tell me how worshipping Caesar would get someone out of a charge of settng a fire that caused major damage to Rome. Produce the evidence because I think this is another fantasy you are trying to pass off as fact.And no, traditions are NOT accepted as facts. They are usually regarded as inaccurate at best and not infrequently fictitious. You've had examples of THAT too, in this thread.You haven't produced anything that shows integrity in Larry Thomas. But you have shown us plenty about your own lack of integrity.

It's quite obvious to me the way your "challenge" works. Since there is very little good evidence about how the Apostles died you demand that your opponents produce evidence that doesn't exist while pretending to have evidence yourself - which you refuse to produce - because you don't have it. And you ignore the evidence that IS produced and declare that it does not exist.One dishonest trick and two outright lies.And that is your "checkmate evidence".What more needs to be said ?

It's not entirely true that no evidence has been produced.In post 68 I wrote

quote:

---

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

​

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html
(Book 15 dealing with the events of 62-65 AD).

---

The Neronian persecution is believed to be responsible for the deaths of Peter AND Paul. Tacitus tells us that the issue was the great fire - not Christianity itself and certainly not anything to do with the resurrection as Willowtree claims.Willowtree has ignored this evidence.

I don't see what's so hard to understand. According to TacitusNero's persecution was based on the allegation that the Christians were to blame for the great fire that burnt down a large part of Rome. Peter and Paul were supposedly executed in that persecution, so they were executed for involvement in the fire - either directly or as leaders of the Christian cult which was blamed for the fires.