RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

There is no avoidance, the only avoidance is the refusal to agrue from that which I already have posted. If no person can refute from what I already said then this reveals the dishonesty in ones intent.
If you really care then re-read my replies - I have answered. No one has the honesty to even admit that which is already there. If this is true then how much more is it true that it won't matter if I downloaded an entire library into this board.For an Admin to burst in under the guise of neutrality is further proof of the private speaking and giving creedance to the massive ignorance being presented as legitimacy in this room. A person who knows exactly what I am talking about, a person who is next in my cross hairs of replies forth coming.

This debate is experiencing wholesale denial of evidence posted after post one. Until this evidence is at least recognized the debate consists of one genuine person who does not know (Asgara), and a handful of educated persons suddenly feigning ignorance with the sole intent of denying the massive amount of evidence in existence.Anyone who doesn't believe the apostles/disciples existed is a dishonest clown. One debater cited evidence for Alexander the Great by acknowledging a city named after him. I wonder if by the same criteria one could guess how many cities, places, cathedrals, etc.etc. are named after an apostle.The true intent of this topic is to expose and evidence the difference between a Professor Thomas versus todays dishonest atheist revisionist activity.It doesn't matter what you now claim - your first responses indicate the truth. You refused (and still do) to even consider whether a miracle has happened. This is because of your atheist worldview, of which, I have already identified to be a moral decision congruent with the atheist dimension of truth.The "challenge" of the apostles existence is the only place to go in lieu of the evidence presented. My response is for anyone to produce one shred of evidence to the contrary. Or how about attacking the content of the post (1) ?Atheists want to revise history by claiming it never happened. This is why they arbitrarily create the "details" exclusion. If a source records what a person was thinking it is automatically tossed because "nobody can remember details like that". This is done so they can revise history in conformity to their worldview and its hatreds.The Bible records a lot of details because the claim is that it is God's eternal word. The claim is verified by the Resurrection. Nobody says the apostles didn't exist.Barrabas was released because of the custom of Passover, he being the type of the Hebrews condemned to a life of slavery in Egypt but saved by God through Moses.You are correct about the trials of Jesus being impossible UNLESS you view it under the claim - which is the Father was pouring His wrath on the Son for all sins. Only God could of pulled those strings and made Christ go through 3 trials in one night. Paul sat in jail for years waiting for trial.

Read "Sherlocks's Tryal of the Witnesses" by Bishop Sherlock.

You've succeeded in drawing me in to your Sunday School test concerning John.Everyone knows John was the only apostle NOT martyred. Bannished to the isle of Patmos, God revealed the Revelation of John at this location."come up hither" (Rev.4:1) That is John being raptured to heaven, he is also a type of the church who will also be raptured prior to the Great Tribulation.Alexander the Great responsible for the high culture of Greece ?A genocidal maniac who conquered the world at such a young age. He accomplished this infamy because he was demon possessed, and the same demon who possessed him will possess anti-christ.Professor Cyrus Gordon has proven that the high culture of Greece originated from Egypt. When a Pharoah "who knew not Joseph" came to power, this resulted in the first exodus of the shepard kings. They are the fearless and cultured civilization that populated Greece.

Out of context, definetly yes Dan.The problem is a room full of "debaters" who refuse to even recognize all that I have posted since post 1.I know exactly what I have said. Respond to what has been argued or continue to crown yourselves champion.

You are repeating yourself and now so will I. Because the evidence is massive and voluminous, this becomes a simple test. You are either too ignorant to debate OR too dishonest.Because the evidence is massive, it also contradicts. Different sources claim different things about the apostles/disciples. Method of death and locations are widely debated. The common denominator contained through out the evidences is the apostles/disciples lived, and were martyred for reporting the claim of the Resurrection and the gospel. No source exists saying they didn't live or die for the message of the risen Christ, the sources disagree on details but not the central claims.As I said in a previous post, I intended this topic to smoke out the present dishonesty of atheism. Professor Thomas greatly evidences this. I am very dismayed that every atheist in this debate (save one or two) who has chosen to insult my intelligence by completely ignoring what evidence I have posted since post 1, although you are not completely guilty, you have conveniently ignored most major responses of reply and their specific content.If I "lose" the debate for not evidencing the existence of the apostles/disciples then that is better than having to live with myself for caving in to ignorance/dishonesty.Who is responsible for christianizing Antioch, Macedonia, Rome, Britain, Ethiopia, the world ?What would happen if a person were to walk the streets of Mecca or Tehran or Damascus and say " there is a new way of relating to God other than the Koran and it is the gospel of the risen Christ " ?They would be killed in a New York minute.Thats exactly what the apostles/disciples did, and in N.T. times everywhere was just like Mecca, Tehran, or Damascus. If you didn't believe with the majority you were a heretic/infidel and subject to instant death." Caesar is Lord " is what saved you from a trip to the Coliseum.Can anyone produce one single shred of evidence of any kind that indicates the apostles/disciples did not die horribly for the witness of Jesus ?IF they did, then the circumstances of their deaths can only be explained by the message they preached.

Thanks Reef, but the N.T. says God will give ONE sign and that sign is the sign of the prophet Jonah. Yes, faith is important, but God doesn't expect faith to be based on fiction - only fact, the fact of the Resurrection.

Whether you actually admit it or not this "debate" is now a two pony show - you and me.With a hundred pages come and gone, you/the room, finally admit the apostles/disciples existed. Once again, my opponent, suddenly and quietly, now recognizes the existence of the claimed eyewitnesses.Why the teeth pulling ?You could of declared this fact early on, but instead the deliberate choice was made to allow the ignorant to infect the debate with endless nonsense. You damn well know none of your amen audience is going to cross or contradict their Admin./scholar.This late admission (apostles existence) reveals the dishonest spirit I repeatedly complained about. The point is, you tried to get away with saying they never existed, why don't you scroll backwards and apologize to everyone who made the same dishonest claim that you could of prevented.Then in response to my accusation of "atheist revisionist activity" - you straight out admit it. This is the first time I ever encountered an atheist admitting this - almost unbelievable !I aint impressed though, revisionist is a euphemism for liar/fraud, and your non chalant and shameless attitude, that atheism, which hates the God of the Bible, can somehow clean up the "mess" is the ultimate oxymoron I ever heard."NOBODY can separate their worldview from the ax they grind " says Dr. Scott. There is no such thing as an objective historian - they all have axes to grind. Now how silly for you to insist that your atheism plays no part in your admitted revisionism !I demand that you name the sources for your beliefs about Jesus, whatever they be I will prove they contain claims that preclude any reasonable person from characterizing Jesus as "good and wise". Then why don't you explain how atheist revisionist frauds have "found" the "Q" document ? I have access to every codex, manuscript, and papyri fragment in existence, including facsimiles of the three Great Uncials. You can "revise" the interpretation but not the sources.Once again, how can atheists/scholars, who do not believe in the existence of the supernatural/miracles be even remotely objective to a religion that claims its very existence on a miracle (Resurrection, 1Cor. 15) ?The reason the Bible makes no sense to you is because you have no God sense. The Bible is utter nonsense if miracles/God doesn't exist.
Apostle Paul said the cross of Christ is foolishness to the Greeks, yet when he encountered the philosophers on Mars Hill they had the sense to recognize that just maybe they could be wrong, so they erected a monument to the "unknown god". Those Greek philosophers had God sense/integrity when the chips were down. So did Professor Thomas.In previous topics I have generically defined "fundementalism" to be the bad element in any given good. Presently, christianity has been completely corrupted by fundementalism, so has atheism. Larry Thomas fact driven atheism has been corrupted by Talibanic revisionism. Prof. Thomas would never change the basic facts and claims of any other dimension of truth.Its the integrity of 1950's atheism that produced Dr. Scott, who used this methodology to determine the validity of the Resurrection.According to Dr. Scott, whatever evidence that exists about the apostles/disciples martyrdom, whether tradition or legend, or account, or bio, or story, not a shred, NOT EVEN ONE PIECE that indicates they did not die alone, for the claim of the Resurrection.It is not unreasonable for an objective mind to find this convincing, it surely (if true) fulfills an evidenciary basis to have faith. This type of evidence creates the conclusion "there is no other explanation". But if your mind is made up then thats the hallmark of fundementalism - a closed mind.I had no intention of ever posting martyrdom evidence. That would give dead-enders undeserving access to desecrate the evidence and rob those who really want to know from pursuing the most important claim of all time and thus cheating them out of a "laying the last book down" experience concluding He rose.You say outside of the Bible almost no one noticed Jesus at all.Thats because there is a Devil with legions of demons working full time to prevent that. Satan must be realized or one is engaging in selectiveness.Barrabas would never be eligible for pardon IF his crime was perped against Rome or Romans. He robbed Jews, so the Romans didn't really care. Its Passover, and the Romans didn't entirely rule by brutality, they kept the conquered in line by using their smarts also. Jews are formidable, so a custom that has an undeseving sinner be pardoned from death perfectly fits the circumstances of the first Passover. There is no stretch here in this respect. Your critique fails when you start from the assumption that the Bible is wrong to begin with.
Josephus was indeed a meticulous historian of Jewish affairs, but the lack of mention in his writings (if true) doesn't prove your case, however it is evidence. I feel you lack a clear preponderance to claim victory.Three trials in one night is impossible unless God is involved.Why would the gospel writer make that up ?The writer is an eyewitness of the Resurrection - that is the claim of the overall context.Why did Mark have Jesus call Himself "Son of Man" when writing to Gentiles ?If he is a liar promoting myth why not have Jesus call Himself "Son of God" ?Because Mark is telling the truth. Jesus called Himself "Son of Man",
and the audience of Jews in the temple knew exactly what He meant, this is why they told Pilate "He made Himself Son of God".By the way, why was the 2nd temple re-built ?[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 03-14-2004]

The previous post explains exactly why I don't.I only answer this post of yours because of the line "why hide your light under a bushel ?"Because the preface truth just prior to the parable of the sower says God intentionally hides the truth in parables for the expressed purpose of preventing some people from getting converted.If you really want to settle the Resurrection, then I have pointed you in the direction you need to go.

The next post I reply to will be your post number 106.

Post 30...post 37...38...45...49...59...64 (the books)...66 (your post and you cite McBirnie's Book, which is evidence of the "checkmate")...post 77...and post 101.Allow me to recap.I said from the outset that there is not a shred of evidence in existence that refutes the checkmate claim. The checkmate evidence admits that details vary but the common denominators remain : horrible martyrdom alone for the report of the Resurrection.Now 125 pages into the debate and NOBODY has posted one piece of evidence to refute the claim, including a person who has vast macro and micro knowledge in religious studies. (Brian)When I debated in evolution topics, whatever I offered was instantly
challenged, there wasn't any paucity of opposition evidence, but in this debate not one debater can provide any evidence at all refuting the checkmate evidence.It took a hundred pages before the in house scholar would clearly admit the apostles/disciples lived. In previous posts I repeatedly said Jesus Seminarians admit the apostles/disciples lived. The J.S. are evangelicals worst critics, if they admit Jesus lived/apostles lived then why must I stoop down and defend against one liners/debaters who don't even know where the argument is/status ?Then the debate now focuses on the apostles/disciples deaths/circumstances. Nobody has argued against the claims of post 101.Like who christianized the world ? And it was done in an era that murdered persons for wrong beliefs, contrasted with what would happen today in certain cities.Someone challenged the escape hatch of recanting. Again, the same era said if you would declare "Caesar is Lord" that would spare you a Coliseum trip. This was the climate worldwide - opposing politcal/religious status quo equaled death/martyrdom unless you recanted.I have already refused to actually post martyrdom evidence because :There isn't any evidence to the contrary.It would be desecrated by dead-enders, which is equivalent to debating with dishonest and ignorant persons who have no intention of doing anything but Talibanic destruction.I have already revealed the true intent was to expose this board to the fact driven integrity of a Larry Thomas, a man who would slap the living shit out of the Talibanic fundementalists who have seized atheism and destroyed its backbone of integrity.I cannot even get the collective atheistic presence in this arena to EVEN ADMIT the known claims of christianity (Bible claims to be the word of God etc.etc.) (exception to CA, and maybe Brian). If EvC atheism cannot even acknowledge what christianity claims then this eradicates any frame of reference to intelligently argue from. And it evidences my assertion that revisionism equals fraud.This debate consists of four genuine debaters (Asgara, Chipotera, Trixie, Paulk) and a ringleader (Brian) and numerous dishonest clowns who never acknowledge any content.Presently, we have a single voice of chorus demanding checkmate evidence. I can only interpret this as a compliment to the nature of the evidence, that in lieu of the implications (checkmate true) that this particular evidence is greatly convincing.The sources of scholarship for the entire church world agree in unison that they died alone, horribly, for the Resurrection report.
Non church scholars agree at a rate of 500 to 1. (estimated), the point is that there is no evidence to contradict the checkmate evidence. I define evidence to be "pieces of proof supporting a claimed fact".If someone arbitrarily says "traditions" are not evidence then this makes you an oddball in contrast to thousands of scholars who say it is. Traditions are based on cores of truth, common denominators among the traditions are then accepted as unverifiable historical FACT.But if your worldview places you in a state outside a reachable pale of objectively reviewing the evidence, then no amount will convince you. This is why I have refrained from posting the accessible to anyone checkmate evidence.The claim of fact is made, they died alone, horribly, for the witness of the Resurrection.Can someone please tell me what evidence exists to refute anything that I have said/evidenced ?

Stop sniveling for your mommy/Admin to come rescue you. You are obviously out of your league and realm of knowledge. The dogma of your Talibanic worldview places outside the pale of reach of ever comprehending what truth/evidence is.

I am very glad to see Admin, thank you for your much needed attention in this debate.I am disappointed that the "message" of your post preliminarily sides with my opponents. Maybe I can change your mind.Previously, in this debate, I said that in evolution debates whatever I argued was immediately responded to/challenged/refuted(?). But in this debate, starting in Post 37, and repeated in posts 45, 59, 77, 101, and 126, was a specific challenge for anyone to produce ONE shred of evidence that contradicted the claim that the apostles/disciples did not die horribly, alone, for the report of the Resurrection.Thus far not one person has been able to produce that ONE piece of evidence. The collective educated body of my opponents can instantly produce contrary evidence in other topics but when challenged to do so here no one can even produce ONE shred.Everything said thus far I have (past tense) argued to be in itself evidence supporting my claim that the apostles/disciples died, alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection. The challenge stands and has yet to be tarnished in any way.The preceding evidence ALSO resides on the following foundations :That the evidence of martyrdom varies, some sources disagree about locations and methods of death, and of course the dates. But the point is the common denominators; which are, that all the sources agree that the apostles/disciples died alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection. This claimed fact was posted in posts 37, and 45, and 59, and 101. Thus far none of my opponents have offered any contrary evidence, in fact this particular evidence has been completely ignored.Post 59 and Post 77 : In post 59 I tossed out three famous names and challenged how we know they existed. In post 77 debater took bait and immediately posted evidence. My point here was that this educated person could evidence three famous people instantly but he could not offer a shred of evidence against the 14 most famous men of all time and the claims I was making about them. This further evidences the claim of the challenge that zero evidence exists contradicting that the apostles/disciples died alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection. Thus far the debater in question has completely evaded answering the specific lapse evidenced here.Post 62 : 11 losers became 11 men of iron who turned the world upside down. They became winners because of the Resurrection. No debater has offered any explanation of this, much less any evidence to refute the claim.Post 101 and Post 126 : These posts declare as fact that the worldwide climate of New Testament times had zero tolerance for opposing political/religious views/claims, that this atmosphere establishes as fact that those who challenged the status quo were subject to instant death/martyrdom. I even included a comparison to what would happen in certain cities today if the gospel were to be preached in these places. The point is that the apostles/disciples did exactly what I referenced (preached radical new religion in a dangerous climate that often murdered such persons). No debater, as of yet, has offered any evidence (or explanation) to refute this evidence. I must conclude that it does evidence the claim that the apostles died alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection.Again, I only claim the preceding text of evidence to be "pieces of proof supporting the claimed fact".Post 1 : Says eminent Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas identified the checkmate evidence. No debater thus far can offer one single shred of evidence against the messenger or his message. This post also says that it took a man of Ph.D. capabilities three and a half years to review all the Resurrection evidence and he could not find one shred of evidence against the claim.This is why I demand in this particular debate that the claim is fact unless one person can post one shred of evidence (or even an explanation) to the contrary. I am sure explanations will now come - bring them on !I also admitted that the only reason I posted this topic was to smack the Talibanic atheists in this room/generation with the integrity of a Professor Thomas.Admin. I believe I have provided evidence and its explanation.May I request that you remain silent and allow the debate to proceed ?Whatever you decide, in advance, I support.Thank You.Willowtree

Your reply will be the next one I respond to AFTER I respond to Admin.Thanks for your response.

The supreme claim of my central argument was that the collective body of my opponents could instantly post and refute(?) anything in previous topics, but when I boasted a challenge to produce ONE shred of evidence that contradicted the checkmate evidence - the silence was deafening.Instead, this specific challenge was treated as if it wasn't made. I find it very interesting that the most important claim of christianity and the challenge to evidence against it was met with the dishonest responses of acting like it wasn't there. This denial went on until your appearance, this is why I repeated the claim/challenge.If a claim is not recognized/acknowledged then should I keep repeating it or just at some point conclude it to be unchallenged fact ?Its my topic, I am running it my way, and I will not have my clear points/agruments ignored.I made a grand point indeed, even the scholarly elements present could not offer anything against the challenge - they could only deny what I was specifically saying and cry foul by invoking the rules.But the point is now moot, a little further up the road I see that scholar has found a "shred".It also becomes even more moot because you too have completely gutted the strength of my point by not recognizing it, which lets all my opponents off of the meat hook they were dangling from.