RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

This is an obvious inducement to debate something that I never agreed.I did say that the intent of this topic was to smack the atheists of this room/generation with the integrity of a Professor Thomas.By changing the topic title you are also declaring the 8 assumed facts to be facts. (post 1)There will be no debate unless these 8 facts are assumed true. This is the claim of post 1. If not, delete the title amendment and the 8 facts are back on the table.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/...heracleon-wace.html"The first passage quoted by Clement bears on an accusation brought against some of the Gnostic sects, that they taught that it was no sin to avoid martyrdom by denying the faith. No exception can be taken to what Heracleon says on this subject. "Men mistake in thinking that the only confession is that made with the voice before the magistrates; there is another confession made in the life and conversation, by faith and works corresponding to the faith. The first confession may be made by a hypocrite: and it is one not required of all; there are many who have never been called on to make it, as for instance Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi [Lebbaeus]; the other confession must be made by all. He who has first confessed in his disposition of heart will confess with the voice also when need shall arise and reason require. Well did Christ use concerning confession the phrase 'in Me' (ean omologhsh en emoi), concerning denial the phrase 'Me.' A man may confess 'Him' with the voice who really denies Him, if he does not confess Him also in action; but those only confess 'in Him' who live in the confession and in corresponding actions. Nay, it is He Whom they embrace and Who dwells in them Who makes confession 'in them'; for 'He cannot deny Himself.' But concerning denial, He did not say whosoever shall deny 'in Me,' but whosoever shall deny 'Me'; for no one that is 'in Him' can deny Him. And the words 'before men' do not mean before unbelievers only, but before Christians and unbelievers alike; before the one by their life and conversation, before the others in words."What is posted above proves that Heracleon was biased against martyrdom.How does Heracleon cancel out every other source about Matthew's martyrdom ?Go to Google and type "St. Matthew Martyrdom"[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 03-18-2004]

Asgara :I officially enter McBirnie's "Search for the Twelve Apostles" into evidence.This source provides the accounts of the apostles martyrdom.Regardless of what you say I will not discontinue the debate with you.I have been tied up answering Admins (plural) and Brian.Remember that the checkmate evidence says they all died alone, horribly for the report of the Resurrection, AND I added that there isn't a shred to contradict. This obviously includes traditions, stories, legends, church records, etc.etc.Brian offers "evidence" against Matthew (finally), which means he also knows of the evidence that claims Matthew was martyred. If he accepts one scrap to rise and be evidence against checkmate, then how does it cancel out the mountain of sources that say otherwise ?I had to wait for someone to post something against, by doing this they cannot now say the evidence for martyrdom to not be evidence/invalid.I have not in the slightest been dishonest.Cannot anyone acknowledge that in a debate forum not one person could post one piece of evidence contradicting martyrdom ? That was my point seeing how everyone always posts against constantly in other topics and this debate was under a specific challenge to do so early on. Thats all.

Yes, Admin.Willowtree

I do not understand what you are claiming.In this time period christianity was underground because its believers recognized Jesus Christ as God and not the Emperor. Whenever the Emperor felt like it he murdered christians for not proclaiming that he was "LORD".Source : "Apostolic Fathers" translated by Goodspeed (the martyrdom of Polycarp)

This post perfectly represents deliberate dishonesty. Never did I say I didn't have evidence or did I pretend - I made a challenge while pointing out that opponents could post instantly in any other topic but suddenly in this thread, when challenged, not a thing. This is a valid point which you do not have the integrity to admit.

You will get full responses to everything posted including the Barrabas issue which is not being forgotten by me - 1 or 2 days away.

BRIAN QUOTE :It doesn’t cancel out anything, it does prove, however, that some people did doubt his martyrdom, which negates your claim. Since you haven’t posted any evidence yet, this is a lot stronger than the case you have made thus far.What are the other sources concerning Matthew, are they totally objective and honest claims, or are they from people whose faith would benefit in some way if the apostles died as martyrs?Your other sources, whatever they are, do not automatically negate Heracleon either of course, the bias you claim that makes his testimony doubtful in your eyes, can also be applied to pro-Christian sources, there is no such thing as a bias free historical account. ALL history is a creation of the mind. END BRIAN QUOTEThe above excerpt begins with an exaggeration, which is that "some people did doubt his (Matthew) martyrdom".The unique thing about "the challenge" was no debater could post a single shred against the checkmate evidence for a 150 pages of debate, probably an all time first in a forum whose members are hatchett experts. But every honest and intelligent and non-naive person knows that a furious scavenger hunt was on-going by the resident scholar/all my opponents. Technically, the hunt came to an end when BRIAN scraped up a scrap, an out of context quote by a respected church Father, who quoted a gnostic (AKA heretic) Heracleon, who said that two or three apostles were not martyred (not just Matthew ), who made this spurious claim WHILE DEFENDING AN ARGUMENT AGAINST MARTYRDOM.Heracleon said it was not a sin/shame to deny the faith and avoid martyrdom, to evidence his whitewash of cowardice/fear he capriciously proclaims "such and such" were not martyrs. For those of you unknowing about gnostics; they base ALL their spiritual claims on a personal experience, unlike the Church who base their spiritual claims/sources solely upon the writings of the apostles/disciples.With this now said; who are the "some people" that claim Matthew wasn't martyred ?Who besides the gnostic-ok-to-deny-faith-heretic-Heracleon ?Lets assume this is a shred - you're still in a state of humiliation. You have collectively, as a room, now produced one scrap off a gnostic table - all from a guy who knows he hasn't the guts to die for his personal vision of God. Reminds me of draft dodgers citing "conscience". Why can't you just say you're afraid to die instead of invoking conscience as if you're the only one who has one ?Continuing with the excerpt : BRIAN then complains that I haven't posted any evidence about apostles/disciples martyrdom. Yes I have and will.McBirnie's "Search for the Twelve Apostles" was already entered in to evidence, and the urging to simply type "saints name martyrdom" into Google search, and now I add "The Oxford Dictionary of Saints" compiled by David Hugh Farmer.These three sources are all readily available to most everyone - nothing obscure here. They all evidence the claim that the apostles/disciples died alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection.IF you are going to utilize the weight of a Heracleon to be refutation, then by the same standard/criteria, the three sources cited, plus my refutation of Heracleon, places you back on the grisly meat hook.IF you forget Heracleon altogether and challenge my evidence alone to not be evidence THEN this is what I say :This is why I didn't want to post the evidence. Because atheist revisionism/mindset has completely erased the meaning and credibility of religious evidence. TO YOU, the collective sources and evidence for the apostles/disciples martyrdom simply ISN'T evidence. Atheism, in general, is completely brainwashed, diametrically opposed to the validity of theism and their sources. You hold the sacred doctrines and claims of the Church to a scientific standard of evidence. But have no trouble when it comes to science deducing unseen things with the flimsiest of evidence. The amount of phsical evidence, by volume, that exists to claim man evolved from an ape is utterly "meagre".In fairness, you could say, theists/christians are brainwashed. YES WE ARE.We are brainwashed with the word of God, that is the foundational claim of every church Father and christian, we have had our brains washed with the subjective words of God/Jesus Christ, which, IF He is, becomes objective truth. Everyone needs their brainwashed by the word of God.Previously, in this topic, I argued that my opponents/atheism "is beyond the pale", the boundary of being affected by anything theist. What I am saying is that atheism and theism are too far apart. I don't want to argue about what evidence is, since I KNOW that any church source is automatically more objective than a non church source, and I know you/the room consider church sources/traditions to be laughable - we are too far apart. This isn't an insult - just an honest assessment.Back to your excerpt :Yes I agree Heracleon is contrary evidence.You say there is no such thing as a bias free historical account: Yes I agree, I think I said the exact same thing before and you balked.Then you say "All history is a creation of mind"I totally disagree, that is the admitted revisionist in you talking. Maybe its a byte from your worldview, whatever it is it is nonsense unless I am not understanding. Lets just say I don't understand what you mean by that remark.Your anti-Dr.Scott stuff is pure rant.Does not post 1 say that Professor Thomas didn't spend x amount of hours looking into the evidence for the Resurrection. You change the object to Jesus as opposed to Resurrection.Dr. Scott's lifelong crusade is to rhetorically wonder why people reject the claim of the Resurrection AND they haven't spent 15 hours of their life reviewing the evidence.Jesus not a founder of religion ?Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father except by Me"Brian you know this about Jesus, are you revising ?I agree; nothing is ever PROVEN in history.Let me re-phrase : The evidence for the Resurrection is sufficent to conclude that He rose.The point about the tombs is as follows :There are two tombs in Palestine that the Church claims to be the one Jesus was raised from.Why ?Because no one knows for sure which is the right tomb.Why ?Because it was lost to history.Why ?Because there was no body in it. (empty tomb assumed fact)It wasn't until the 4th century when the Church started to value its sacred sites that two tombs were narrowed down to be the real one.You are correct. Most crucifixions lasted three days.Jesus was dead in about 6 or 7 hours.The claim of scripture is that Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.God the Father crucified Jesus, He was suffering the wrath of God.This is why the scripture says "from about the sixth hour until the ninth" darkness covered the Earth. Theologians rightfully conclude that this darkness hid the facts/truths of the Suffering Messiah prophesied in Isaiah 53.Isaiah 53 says Jesus became the intense object of God's wrath for payment of sins AND for all diseases.Jesus died so early because God severely punished Him for our sins."my God my God why hast thou forsaken me" clearly indicates that Jesus was this object.The mommas boys image of the sons of thunder is derived from the passage when they sent their mother to Christ to ask for the best seats in the coming Kingdom.Cataclysmic change heresay ?They took the gospel to every remote region of the world, prior to Resurrection they couldn't even catch a fish. (John 21)What is the origin of the christianization of the world ?GOOD AND WISE :Jesus made claims of divinty and eternal pre-existence.A good person wouldn't lie and make claims like these.A wise person could make claims like this but that would make him a fraud and thus not good.Jesus cannot be BOTH, only one or the other, OR He is who He says He is : Son of God who always existed eternally.Whatever source you claim for good and wise has Jesus making Divintiy claims.Jesus mentally ill ? He is Son of God or a fraud, hence Dr. Scott's book titles "Jesus Christ Super Nut or Super Natural ?"Why discuss if Jesus rose, if you don't believe He lived, died etc.etc. ?The Professor Thomas presentation was about the Resurrection. The reality of the strength of Dr. Scott's convincibility was because Professor Thomas personally trained Dr. Scott. Larry Thomas respected Gene Scott as a fact driven scholar. No other person in the world could of converted Larry Thomas except Gene Scott. It took a respected peer to even get his attention.The reason why Dr. Scott always writes his name "Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University" is to prevent the world at large from falsely thinking that his degree is from some two-bit Bible college. The world simply cannot accept that a man with a Ph.D. from Stanford could be a christian. Dr. Scott jokes about this all the time. He constantly disproves the dumb christian stereotype.Larry Thomas began his quest for God that day. He later became Catholic and died in that dimension of truth. Dr. Scott, of course, is a Protestant Evangelical Paulinist.The Resurrection, IF true, validates divinty because Resurrection was predicted by Christ Himself.If Mark is liar/myth maker why have Jesus call Himself Son of Man instead of Son of God ?Because Jesus called Himself Son of Man to the Jews who knew what it meant. But Mark wrote to Gentiles who have no idea what Son of Man meant and he was writing to convince Gentiles Jesus was Son of God.This is intrinsic evidence of truth.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 03-21-2004]

This is the post of a person wanting to bail out of the debate.You are an admitted revisionist, which I have said is nothing but a euphemism for liar/fraud.To say Dr. Scott made up the Larry Thomas event greatly evidences what you are.I can take sharp criticism because I dish it out, but to resort to concluding the event never happened indicates hysteria.Like I said we are too far apart in our beliefs. There is no common frame of reference. I think/know you are suffering the wrath of God - God sense removal, which means you have been turned over to a "strong delusion".

The synoptics are representative of ONE voice, they tell us that some type of rebellion happened, and that Barrabas was nabbed in the ensuing dragnet.We do not know what the rebellion was about, it could of been directed at Jewish structures that the Romans allowed. It could of been against Rome - who knows ?But John's gospel tells us that "Now Barrabas was a robber."John was written after the synoptics and in my view gives us the updated and accurate facts about the crimes of Barrabas. John also had connections inside the Sanhedrin.Are we to believe that the various writers are in myth-making conspiracy ?The variations themselves evidence against conspiracy.Next thing....If you believe there was an eclipse that caused the darkness at the time of the crucifixion, then you agree that there was a "darkness" that occurred ?Next thing....No Solomon's Temple ?Could you briefly tell me why you believe this ?
By your own defintion of "oddball", are you one in this issue ?Next thing....If a miracle resides outside the realm of historical enquiry, and I say it doesn't, then why is my assertion a claim of faith and not yours ?

Jesus died on the cross.Do you really think the Jews who incited the crucifixion didn't have their desire fulfilled ?If the gospel writers are knowingly myth-making then why have Him die so early ? This doesn't make sense or help their story.Jesus did not die on Friday - He died on Wednesday because the Passover was a High Day Sabbath.

Colossians 2:17 has Paul interpreting the feast days of the O.T.Referring to these feasts, Paul says they were a "shadow of things
to come"...."but the substance casting the shadow was Christ".The 7 feast days of the O.T. are also prophetic symbols of typology
that perfectly identify and point to Jesus of Nazareth. In the O.T. "feast days" means "set times", these set times will literaly show off God's ability to control history.For example; the slain passover lamb had to be firstborn and without spot or blemish. Jesus was the first born of God and sinless (without spot and blemish).Jesus HAD to be crucified on the Passover OR God's typology of Christ fulfilling the feast of Passover would of been ruined.I know you dismiss Satan, but we evangelicals do not. He is as real as Jesus and I bring him up with one purpose. Contrary to traditional fundementalist nonsense that has Satan gloating over Christ crucified - Satan did everything in his power to prevent the crucifixion.Satan entered into Judas with the single intent of trying to get Jesus locked away in some jail so the prophecy of Him fulfilling the set time of Passover be ruined. All Satan wanted was to ruin the passover lamb (Jesus) from being offered on Passover and jail was his move to prevent that from happening.The gospels are clear : Jesus invoked Jonah, that as he was three days and three nights in the whales belly so would Jesus be dead three days and three nights THEN raise according to the promise of the Father.Jesus was crucified in 33 AD and in that year Passover was on Wednesday. Passover begins the Jewish religious new year and Passover is always on the 14th. This means Passover will fall on each day of the week every 7 years.However, Passover is also the Sabbath, it is called a "High Day Sabbath".Jesus was crucified on the Passover (Wednesday) which is also a Sabbath, at sundown Wednesday began Unleavened Bread and it lasted seven days from the end of Passover (sundown Wednesday).The normal Sabbath began at sundown Friday and ended at sundown Saturday. Sundown Saturday begins the first day of the week (Sunday), which also begins the set time of Firstfruits.Jesus HAD to be removed from the cross and entombed by Wednesday sundown for Him to rise at sundown Saturday to fulfill Firstfruits - Jesus being the firstfruits of the Spirit raised to immortal life, and those that are "in Christ" have the same promise when they die.Wednesday sundown to Thursday sundown 1 DAY (24 hour period)Thursday sundown to Friday sundown 2nd DAY (24 hour period)Friday sundown to Saturday sundown 3rd DAY (24 hour period)There is the 72 hours of Jonah prophesied.The Church and its Babylonian traditions are just plain wrong. The Pope and his theologians know this.When Saturday sundown arrived - RESURRECTION on the first day of the week which began Sunday and Firstfruits. 50 days after Firstfruits ended (Monday sundown) came Pentecost which is the day the Church was born.Trumpets is when the 2nd coming will happen. Whatever year Jesus returns - He will fulfill the feast/set time of Trumpets, which on our calendar comes in September. Jesus will rapture the church and 10 days later the set time of Atonement will come, which begins the Great Tribulation for those who rejected Christ.Source : Dr. Gene Scott, teaching VF-514http://www.drgenescott.com/thearchives.htm
then click "subject" then click "prophecy" then scroll to VF-514.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 03-22-2004]

Book : "Apostolic Fathers" translated by Goodspeed.In the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp we have the Bishop of Smyrna away on church business. Yet, in another place far away, a young man named Germanicus dies by accident at a festival. This tragic accident was what triggered the crowd and Caesar's officials to seek out and find Polycarp.When arrested Polycarp is given ample opportunity to deny Christ by verbally saying "Caesar is Lord". This was an available escape hatch - recanting.The Great Fire may have been what triggered the round of persecutions that Peter and Paul suffered under. But, one thing is clear, they are imprisoned for being "atheists" ...."christians", and the opportunity to recant didn't suddenly begin with Polycarp who was anointed by John the Apostle.The only thing that makes a christian a christian is the Resurrection.
"if Christ be not risen we are liars" says Paul (1Cor.15)[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 03-22-2004][This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 03-22-2004]

Yes you are correct (basically).The point is that the legends and their common denominators agree that they died alone, horribly, for the report of the Resurrection.Traditions say the same thing. Specifics vary but not the claim of martyrdom. In history this is called unverifiable historic FACT.I also want to remind that atheist worldview just about eviscerates the eligibilty of this particular evidence from being evidence. I have already said this, and I said this in the context of why I didn't want to post the evidence in the first place.I could go to science issues and identify where unseen things are accepted as fact because it is deduced from behavior. Yet the same criteria is arbitrarily tossed in an issue like the Resurrection. The impact of the apostles (unseen) is seen through later figures (like Polycarp) where we have more evidence.New Testament times had every part of the world murdering those who offerred new religious/political doctrines. That is a tenable assumption based upon evidence of other figures suffering the same fate. On this basis it is no stretch to take the traditions/legends/accounts etc.etc. and to conclude that the apostles were martyred the way the sources claim.[This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 03-22-2004]

Jesus Himself cited the SIGN (post 1) of the prophet Jonah....three days and three nights in the whales belly symbolizes His upcoming death (three days and three nights), thats 72 hours. What is so difficult to understand about that ?IF Jesus was entombed starting at Friday sundown then Sunday morning falls way short of three days and three nights.My entire effort of evidencing the "feast days" AKA "set times" was to corroborate, via scripture, the erroneous Church tradition of Good Friday and Sunday morning Resurrection. It also evidences via corroboration that Jesus was crucified. No dumb fishermen could create and implement such a hoax/myth while getting lucky that other Holy Writ confirms what they falsely created. It is not the least bit plausible that the gospels be the conspiratorial genius of the authors. The variations of the post Resurrection scenarios recorded in the gospels PROVE there can be no myth-making intent. IF these accounts are the products of liars/frauds/nefarious miscreants then where is the harmony and compatibility ? The accounts are written from the authors perspective - there are no contradictions - just differences of the reporting of facts. All the common denominators remain, details vary. If evolution was dismissed due to the disagreement over details.........it wouldn't happen.