RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

Well there is ONE honest thing in your post. You never admitted that the reason you didn't produce the evidence was that you didn't have it. But your lame excuses speak for themselves. We both know that there is little if any trustworthy information about the deaths of the Apostles and the claim that they were martyred specifically over the Resurrection simply cannot be supported.So, no there is nothing dishonest about my post.

Well it isn't the first time I've repeated the information. And others have produced evidence, too (like Brian's report of the tradition that Matthew was NOT martyred). Willowtree even replied to that one so he knows that evidence contrary to his claims HAS been produced.

It is not unknwon for people to survive a Roman crucifixion.From Josephus' Autobigraphy

I'm not sure quite what this has to do with my post. All I did was point out that there was a recorded example of a man surviving a Roman crucifixion. And it is possible that Jesus also survided - especially if his legs were not broken (John 19:33). I don't consider it to be likely, but it is still a possibility.And I don't know where you get the idea that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday from. Perhaps you would like to explain. Or are you just going to claim that your assertions must be accepted as true unless disproved again ?Oh and are you prepared to admit that yo do NOT have evidence that all the disciples excpt John were martyred for preaching the Resurrection, and that all of them were offered and refused a chance to recant yet ?Acts 12:1-2 describes the death of James but offers no hint that the resurrection was the issue or that James was offered any chance to save his life. So where is the evidence ?

So you have someone who was not an Apostle, not martyred for preaching the Resurrection and his chance to escape death did not require him to deny the Resurrection. So your evidence is inadequate, even as an example, on no less than 3 points without even considering whether the account is trustworthy.I'll take that as proof that you did NOT have the evidence you claimed to have. Otherwise you could at the least have offered something about an apostle and where the Resurrection was the specific issue.Now as to the relevance of Polycarp's martyrdom to that of Peter and Paul you neglect to mention the date. Polycarp's death has been identified as 155 AD - 90 years later. Indeed you imply that it is much closer in time. But 90 years is ample time for changes in policy - especially if Christians were being persecuted for being Christians rather than for their alleged involvement in the great fire. So even on that point you have shown no relevance to the death of ANY of the Apostles.

So your argument for a Wednesday is based on theological assumptions. And for that you say that three Gospels are wrong ?
(All the synoptics state that Jesus was arrested after the Passover meal)

The fact remains that the synoptic Gospels have Jesus arrested after the Passover meal. If the doctrine of inspiration means anything then surely we should not expect the Gospel authors to ruin God's typology. But you say that they do.And how do the variations in the post-Resurrection prove that the authors were not myth-making ? The Nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke are very different - but that does not change the fact that there is evidence of myth-making there. And the differences in the post-Resurrection accounts are mor than just differences over reporting the facts - not that that should make any difference to you when you say that the synoptics all get the day of the crucifixion wrong.

I wonder if the Passover dates work for Willowtree's explanation ? I was under the impression that the 33 AD date followed the synoptic line - which has the Passover meal on the Thursday evening.

SO basically the situation is that all the experts say that the Passovcer was on a Friday in 33 AD (that is *why* 33 AD is often chosen as a possible date for the crucifixion) but Gene Scott says otherwise.Why should we beleive Gene Scott ? What is the *evidence* that Gene Scott is right and that all the experts are wrong ?

According to your own post 207 So my comment on the experts is derived from your own post. If you want to see actual sources, however, I suggest you check out the links that Asgara provided in post 199 (the first of which points out another problem with a Wednesday crucifixion).I asked you for reasons why we should believe Gene Scott other than the fact that you worship him. Your reply only tells me that you fanatically worship him. Sorry but I don't find that a convincing reason to accept Gene Scott's opinion when according to you, yourself there is a huge amount of scholarship against it on a quite simple matter.You also clearly misrepresent Brian's arguments. Brian does NOT ignore the "three days and three nights" insrtead he disputes your interpretation. Yet another case of dishonesty on your part. Which reminds me you still have not explained why instead of offering evidence concenring the martyrdom of Peter and Paul you claimed to have you instead offered a story about the martyrdom of Polycarp, 90 years later - which itself failed to support your claim that the resurrection was the key issue for the Romans, even then.

While I'd strongly suggest that doing some more research would be better than praying I note that the link has nothign to do with the idea that Jesus was crucified on the Passover, on Wednesday, April 1 33 AD. Are you suggesting that Gene Scott does not teach that ?I would also ask how you would show that Jesus was crucified at the instigation of the Jewish leaders. It is something that is certainly open to question and there is little real evidence - and that is suppsed to be one of the easier points.And finally I would suggest that there is a possiblity that Gene Scott does not consider. That the Empty Tomb story was not part of the teachings of the disciples, but a later addition. This offers a better explanation of why the site was lost (since the place where Jesus was resurrected would surely be important) as well as explaining why Paul makes no mention of the story despite the importance of the resurrection to his beliefs.

I notice that you don't answer the question. Is Willowtree accurately representing Gene Scott's teachings ?