On Martyrdom and other things........

[tosca1]

lwf
Do you agree that Joseph Smith performed divine miracles like Jesus did? They were attested to by multiple Mormon "eyewitnesses." Does that make them fact? And martyrdom is irrelevant. How many Muslim martyrs have there been? Does that indicate that Islam is true and Muhammed was a prophet of God?

This question was addressed to Logicman, but I would like to give my input as well.
I've seen that comparison with martyrdom in other posts as well.


Suicide bombers can't be compared with Christian martyrs. Christian martyrs did not murder people to die along with them!


We're not talking about "patriots" dying for a cause, either! Like the kamikaze pilots, or some resistance group doing a suicide mission.
Nor is this about "mercenaries" - who fight in return of something - like let's say..............."promised financial return for left loved ones,"

or,

...................promised many "virgins," that feed on the lust in the hearts of young men!


Is that how the Abrahamic God would do it?
MAKE them to commit violations of His own Commandment (murder), by using LUST?
More like the playbook of Satan, really.




Doesn't matter whether these gods had performed miracles - the devil can perform miracles too, you know.
Remember the wizards of Pharaoh against Moses? But, not in the same magnitude of God's miracles - what God can do -
yet, enough to perhaps fool a human into thinking he's witnessing a miracle from God.

It's about the matter of discerning if the devil is behind that miracle! That's what's important.
If something about the teachings contradicts or goes against the Scriptures - you bet, it's from the devil.

 

[tosca1]

lwf
How is that different? If the Apostles died believing their faith that Jesus was resurrected is truth, then isn't it the same thing as Muslims who die believing their faith in Muhammed is the truth?

The apostles WITNESSED the resurrection of Jesus.

In fact, when Jesus died, the Apostles went into hiding. They were fearful that they would be rounded up, and persecuted.

BUT when they saw the Resurrected Jesus - they became FEARLESS!
SEEING THE RESURRECTED JESUS WITH THEIR OWN EYES, was what made the big difference for them!


What they did right after witnessing the risen Christ, was a.........................

................................SUDDEN, FULL 360 degrees turn!

 

[tosca1]

And martyrdom is irrelevant.

.............not when we use it in a logical context that's relevant to the argument.


In this case, the willing martyrdom of the once-fearful Apostles to suddenly becoming fearless - in a matter of days!
- after witnessing the risen Lord.


Remember how Peter was so fearful that he even denied his association with Jesus....... 3 times?
How long ago was that? DAYS!
Not even a week!


And most of them, died horrible deaths!

The suddenness of their transformation can only be the result of what they'd seen!

 

[tosca1]

The transformation of Paul (formerly known as Saul of Tarsus), is another thing.

No, he wasn't among the first group of Apostles - he was not with Jesus while Jesus was still alive.
In fact - he persecuted Christians! He was an enemy of Christ!


BUT - he was transformed later on, by the risen Christ.

How many times did he get beaten up? Thrown into dungeons? For preaching?
And, eventually died a martyr too!

 

[Logicman]

Like I've said many times, if somebody says a resurrection is impossible, then that's their claim, and they have to back it up. I have multiple, historical accounts of the resurrection and up to 500 witnesses who were noted in 1st Corinthians. I also have the knowledge that neither science or history has shown that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

What's more, the resurrection of Jesus noted in the Gospels and Acts is "Occams Razor." It's the scenario that best explains a number of things: Why James - who was an unbeliever - now is head of the church in Jerusalem and a believer. It's why Paul became a believer instead of a persecutor. It explains why the disciples, who were afraid and had previously been down in the dumps, suddenly were encouraged and started boldly preaching the resurrected Jesus. It explains why the tomb was empty and why the guards at the tomb were terrified (Matthew 28:4) and later bribed to eventually change their story. It explains why church services were then held on Sunday - the day of the resurrection, and why the church taught the resurrection. It explains why doubting Thomas suddenly became a believer. So, I have all these things and more. Skeptics have nothing but denial and often an anti-supernatural bias that they can't justify with either science or history.

Jesus is Risen indeed!

 

[DataPoint]

The Bible, the work of men, is a second hand document: no one present recorded their own recollections.

 

[tosca1]

The Bible, the work of men, is a second hand document: no one present recorded their own recollections.

That doesn't make it non-credible!

They may have not personally recorded them, but they spoke about them!
The Gospels were intended to be EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT!

Papias, for example, described Mark’s Gospel as a record of Peter’s teachings related to what Peter saw and heard from Jesus.
According to Papias, while Mark was not himself an eyewitness to the events described in his Gospel, he did accurately record the firsthand experiences of his teacher and mentor, Peter.

The Apostles Wrote the Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts | Cold Case Christianity

A straightforward reading of the Book of Acts reveals the apostles saw themselves as eyewitnesses.

coldcasechristianity.com

Think of a biographer publishing a book based on the account given to him by the topic of his book - like someone who witnessed (and perhaps personally experienced), the horrific event of 9/11.

 

[tosca1]

The Bible, the work of men, is a second hand document: no one present recorded their own recollections.

JOHN did.

John 20:4-8 What John "Saw" in the Empty Tomb​

The apostle John's belief in the resurrection was not a "blind leap of faith" when he saw the empty tomb. Jesus had been teaching the disciples that he must be rejected by the religious leaders, be crucified and buried for three days, and then rise from the dead. John was led into a fuller light of understanding and deeper experience with his Master as he listened and obeyed the teaching of Jesus. However, in spite of the teachings, the resurrection of Jesus caught him and all of the disciples by surprise. Psychologically they were not prepared for it.

John 20:4-8 What John "Saw" in the Empty Tomb

Where is the evidence that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead? Examine the death and resurrection of Jesus. The tomb of Jesus Christ was not empty, but His body was not there.

www.abideinchrist.com

 

[DataPoint]

That doesn't make it non-credible!

They may have not personally recorded them, but they spoke about them!
The Gospels were intended to be EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT! Think of a biographer publishing a book based on the account given to him by the topic of his book - like someone who witnessed (and perhaps personally experienced), the horrific event of 9/11.

My point is that it is a secondary source. We don't know if first hand witnesses really spoke to the writers. That keeps credibility in doubt, at least.

 

[DataPoint]

JOHN did.

John 20:4-8 What John "Saw" in the Empty Tomb​

The apostle John's belief in the resurrection was not a "blind leap of faith" when he saw the empty tomb. Jesus had been teaching the disciples that he must be rejected by the religious leaders, be crucified and buried for three days, and then rise from the dead. John was led into a fuller light of understanding and deeper experience with his Master as he listened and obeyed the teaching of Jesus. However, in spite of the teachings, the resurrection of Jesus caught him and all of the disciples by surprise. Psychologically they were not prepared for it.

John 20:4-8 What John "Saw" in the Empty Tomb

Where is the evidence that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead? Examine the death and resurrection of Jesus. The tomb of Jesus Christ was not empty, but His body was not there.

www.abideinchrist.com

Can you show that the writer of John was indeed John of the Apostles with certainity?

 

[Logicman]

The Bible, the work of men, is a second hand document: no one present recorded their own recollections.

That's incorrect.

The early church fathers were UNANIMOUS that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names, thus making Matthew and John (plus Peter via Mark and Peter in his epistle) CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESSES TO JESUS AND HIS RESURRECTION. The authorship of the Gospels was not questioned until Faustus, nearly 400 years after the fact. Proximity matters in historiography. Those closest to the writings all stated that the author attribution was intact.” Here's the citations on Matthew and John:



Matthew

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/1-church-fathers-and-matthews-gospel/


John Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/4-church-fathers-and-johns-gospel/

 

[tosca1]

My point is that it is a secondary source. We don't know if first hand witnesses really spoke to the writers. That keeps credibility in doubt, at least.

Lol. That's so lame.

Many history books are "second-hand source."
Some historians never even talked to the historical people they wrote about - they simply did research and pieced things together!
Why are they acceptable? Credibility-wise?

 

[tosca1]

Can you show that the writer of John was indeed John of the Apostles with certainity?

Although I don't really see how that can make any difference (see my response above #12)........

Who Wrote the Gospels – Evidence for John​

Who Wrote the Gospels – Evidence for John

Who wrote the Gospel of John? While our modern Bibles attach John's name to the beginning of the Gospel, John (just like the other gospel authors) never documented his name within the book. In our previous articles, we looked at evidence for Mark and Matthew's authorship as well as Luke's. So...

apologetics-notes.comereason.org

 

[DataPoint]

That's incorrect.

The early church fathers were UNANIMOUS that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names, thus making Matthew and John (plus Peter via Mark and Peter in his epistle) CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESSES TO JESUS AND HIS RESURRECTION. The authorship of the Gospels was not questioned until Faustus, nearly 400 years after the fact. Proximity matters in historiography. Those closest to the writings all stated that the author attribution was intact.” Here's the citations on Matthew and John:



Matthew

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/1-church-fathers-and-matthews-gospel/


John Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/4-church-fathers-and-johns-gospel/

That was then, and now we have modern ways to recollect what really happened.

 

[DataPoint]

Lol. That's so lame.

Many history books are "second-hand source."
Some historians never even talked to the historical people they wrote about - they simply did research and pieced things together!
Why are they acceptable? Credibility-wise?

It is fact, and your argument is so lame.

 

[DataPoint]

Although I don't really see how that can make any difference (see my response above #12)........

Who Wrote the Gospels – Evidence for John​

Who Wrote the Gospels – Evidence for John

Who wrote the Gospel of John? While our modern Bibles attach John's name to the beginning of the Gospel, John (just like the other gospel authors) never documented his name within the book. In our previous articles, we looked at evidence for Mark and Matthew's authorship as well as Luke's. So...

apologetics-notes.comereason.org

Yes, you don't see, and therein is the story of your failure.

 

[swing_voter]

Scorsese's movie Silence is about martyrdom.


The Japanese couldn't suppress Christianity by killing the Jesuit priests. The priests were all too happy to be martyred.

So the Japanese started torturing the followers to get the priests to stop.

It worked, sort of. There are still plenty of Japanese Christians around today who are descendants of those who were taught Christianity by the Jesuits.


.

 

[Logicman]

That was then, and now we have modern ways to recollect what really happened.

Show me where the traditional Gospel accounts of Jesus are incorrect?

 

[DataPoint]

Show me where the traditional Gospel accounts of Jesus are incorrect?

... you have argued they are correct, so it is your prompt. Go for it. They are secondary sources, nothing more.

 

[tosca1]

Yes, you don't see, and therein is the story of your failure.

Oh well - believe what you want.

 

[Logicman]

... you have argued they are correct, so it is your prompt. Go for it. They are secondary sources, nothing more.

You haven't done your homework. And even IF they were secondary sources, you have no evidence those were incorrect, do you? So either way you've failed to make a case.

The early church fathers were UNANIMOUS that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names, thus making Matthew and John (plus Peter via Mark and Peter in his epistle) CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESSES TO JESUS AND HIS RESURRECTION. The authorship of the Gospels was not questioned until Faustus, nearly 400 years after the fact. Proximity matters in historiography. Those closest to the writings all stated that the author attribution was intact.” Here's the citations for just Matthew and John:


Matthew

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/1-church-fathers-and-matthews-gospel/


John Authorship

https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/4-church-fathers-and-johns-gospel/

 

[DataPoint]

I know the arguments. You have second hand and third hand sources arguing for a secondary provenance. Does not wash?

You must be an evangelical or fundamental.

 

[Logicman]

I know the arguments. You have second hand and third hand sources arguing for a secondary provenance. Does not wash?

It's anathema to those who are determined to ignore any and all evidence for the traditional Gospel authors.

You must be an evangelical or fundamental.

I am. And I got that way by doing my homework over the past 40+ years and getting a formal theological education. You have what in the way of credentials?

p.s. Jesus was a fundamentalist. Be like Jesus.

 

[DataPoint]

No, you are an evangelical because you let your belief override the facts. That's a prerequisite to an evangelical.

 

[Logicman]

No, you are an evangelical because you let your belief override the facts. That's a prerequisite to an evangelical.

Baloney. Cite an example of where my belief overrides a fact about Jesus?

If there's a fact about Jesus I have a contrary belief about, I'll gladly change it once I see the evidence. I don't see you doing that. Ever.