Many of us, as committed Christians, would rather die than reject our Savior.
That's also true of Christians who deny that Jesus is God. Should I be impressed?
Around the world today, Christians are executed regularly because they refuse to deny their allegiance to Jesus or the truth claims of Christianity.
Which is a sad testament to how easily religion can persuade people to contradict their own natures and prefer death. What you don't tell your readers is that those executed also include Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, and others who deny the Trinity.
But their deaths, while heartbreaking and compelling, have no evidential value.
God might disagree with you. God probably thinks that because his enabling grace is the reason they chose death over life, their deaths constitute evidence for God's operating in the world today.
Many people are willing to die for what they don’t know is a lie. Martyrdom doesn’t confirm the truth, especially when the martyrs don’t have first-hand access to the claim for which they’re dying. But this wasn’t the case for the disciples of Jesus. They were in a unique position: they knew if the claims about Jesus were true. They were present for the life, ministry, death and alleged resurrection of Jesus. If the claims about Jesus were a lie, the disciples would have known it (in fact they would have been the source of the lie). That’s why their commitment to their testimony was (and is) so compelling.
You are assuming the NT gives us their resurrection testimony. That's mostly false. First, historians use their best evidence, and the best possible evidence-type for Jesus' resurrection is eyewitness testimony. The only resurrection testimony that has any hope of coming down to us today in firsthand form is Paul, John and Matthew. And even then, this is forgetting for the moment all the disagreements Christian scholars have with each other on to what degree Matthew and John contributed to the final canonical form of those gospels. It's also forgetting how reasonable the arguments are that a prima facie case for apostolic authorship of those gospels cannot even be made.
If we are reasonable to say there is no reasonably reliable way to distinguish apostolic from non-apostolic contributions to those 2 gospels, then the only firsthand testimony you'll have for Jesus' resurrection is Paul, who was a duplicitous liar. Yes, Paul was declaring eyewitness status in 1st Cor. 9:1, but that is falsified in the book of Acts. Nothing about Paul's experience of Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9, Acts 22, Acts 26) expresses or implies that he physically saw the risen Christ. So if the most explicit accounts of that experience do not justify drawing the inference that Paul physically saw the risen Christ, we are well within the bounds of reasonableness to characterize the eyewitness claim in 1st Cor 9:1 as a lie, and deny to Paul the status of "eyewitness". So if the question is "From the New Testament, how much eyewitness testimony to Jesus' resurrection comes down to us in firsthand form?", we are reasonable, even if not infallible, to answer "none".
So if it be true that historians insist that historians use their best evidence, then you fail the first evidentiary hurdle. You cannot make your case from first-hand accounts. Maybe you should write an article arguing that only the devil wants people to think hearsay is less credible than firsthand testimony? Which would then obligate you to argue that the devil has been deceiving America's legal system for centuries.
Unlike the rest of us, their willingness to die for their claims has tremendous evidential value.
Not if we can reasonably argue that the resurrection appearance stories in the gospels are late fabrications. We can. We are reasonable to agree with most Christian scholars that Mark is the earliest gospel, and agree with them further that text written authentically by Mark stops with 16:8. You will trifle all day every day that surely Mark had given a resurrection appearance narrative and it was lost very early. But we are reasonable to go with the scholars who say there is nothing unnatural about Mark intending to end at v. 8. The only thing unnatural about it is that when he ends at v. 8, this creates headaches for apologists 2000 years after the fact, who have bible inerrancy on the brain, and who would rather be martyred than admit the tales of Jesus' resurrection are late fabrications.
And it wouldn't matter if Jesus rose from the dead: Deut. 13 admits that even false prophets can possibly perform genuinely supernatural miracles. So Jesus rising from the dead is not the end of the problem but the beginning.
And according to Mark 3:21, 6:4 and John 7:5, Jesus' own family found his miracles so unconvincing that they saw him as crazy and as giving no reason to put faith in him. If his own family thought his miracles were fake, we are reasonable to agree with these indisputably contemporary eyewitnesses on the point. So if Jesus in fact rose from the dead, it was a deceptive crazy person who rose from the dead, and likely one of those "the Lord God is testing you with a false prophet" things in Deut. 13:3.
In fact, the commitment of the apostles confirms the truth of the resurrection.
And you are apparently aware that talking all confident about stuff that is out of your league, will cause other tithing mammals to spend their money on your stupid bantering bullshit.
The traditions related to the deaths of the apostles are well known.
They are also late and contradictory, which justifies us to completely ignore them if we so choose. And you are showing weakness here, since you've now required your readers to go evaluate late and contradictory church traditions about the death of the apostles. If you seriously held to Sola Scriptura (the bible is alone sufficent for faith and practice), you would not waste your customers' time trying to stuff their heads with non-canonical traditions. You would regard biblical resurrection testimony as sufficient...then you would act like it was sufficient. You are not acting like it just now.
According to local and regional histories, all of the disciples died for their claims related to the Resurrection: Andrew was crucified in Patras, Greece. Bartholomew (aka Nathanael) was flayed to death with a whip in Armenia. James the Just was thrown from the temple and then beaten to death in Jerusalem. James the Greater was beheaded in Jerusalem. John died in exile on the island of Patmos. Luke was hanged in Greece. Mark was dragged by horse until he died in Alexandria, Egypt. Matthew was killed by a sword in Ethiopia. Matthias was stoned and then beheaded in Jerusalem. Peter was crucified upside down in Rome. Philip was crucified in Phrygia. Thomas was stabbed to death with a spear in India. As a detective (and a very skeptical one at that), I don’t necessarily accept all these traditions with the same level of certainty.
Which is puzzling since your commitment to Sola Scriptura means you don't think you need extra-canonical stuff to help your case. If those post-biblical traditions about the apostles' death are of varying degrees of historical value, then what? Are you asking your paying customers to become professional historians? If not, aren't they taking a chance that when they make an amateur judgment about the value of this extra-canonical testimony, they might get it wrong?
Some are better attested than others; I have far greater confidence in the history related to Peter’s death, for example, than I have in the claims related to Matthias’ death.
But you are forced to think Jesus' account of Peter's martyrdom is the best possible historical evidence on the subject, and Jesus made it clear that Peter would be unwilling to die:
18 "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go." 19 Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. (Jn. 21:18-19 NAU)
And if he remained as fickle after Jesus' resurrection as Galatians 2 says, we can be reasonable to infer that Peter in any trial would have denied Jesus like he did before, and similarly to how he denied his true convictions in Galatians 2:12.
Mike Licona, a far greater scholar on the resurrection of Jesus than you, has little confidence in the traditions about Peter's death:
"Clement reports that Peter and Paul suffered multiple attacks and most likely refers to their martyrdoms, although the latter is not without question...I must add that Clement of Rome is of limited use in our investigation, since we have assigned a rating of possible-plus in terms of the strength of this document as a source that reliably preserves apostolic testimony...The accounts regarding the remaining apostles are interesting and may contain historical kernels, but they are anecdotal and cannot be accorded too much weight."
Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (IVP Academic, 2010), pp. 367, 369, 370. Possible-plus? Well gee, I have no rational option but to throw dust and ashes on my head, amen? Why don't you just honestly admit that if it weren't for Sean McDowell's ph.d thesis that deals exclusively with the deaths of the 12 apostles, you wouldn't have been able to write this article?
You want people who are not professional historians to make judgment calls on disputed matters of history that not even professional historians agree on? What are you gonna do next? Demand that your customers decide which accounts of the battle of Troy are reliable and which aren't?
But I am still confident these men died for their claims, even if I may be uncertain about precisely how they died. Here’s why: There were two quick ways to end the upstart Christian religion in the first century (and both the Jewish and Roman leadership would have been eager to accomplish this task). First, the enemies of Christianity could simply have dragged the body of Jesus through town to demonstrate he was still dead. Second, they could have forced the alleged eyewitnesses to recant.
You are assuming the apostolic preaching was considered by the secular authorities to be something demanding their attention. I don't think the book of Acts is anywhere near as historically reliable as you think it is. I say it is lying in nearly everything it says because it was intended less as historically reliable and more as edifying fiction. And yes, I say this after having read Sir William Ramsay's The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1915).
Neither of these two things ever occurred.
Probably because the ruling secular authorities did not view the Christian preaching with anywhere near the panic that Acts says they did. The issue is not whether YOU can be reasonable to characterize Acts as the equal of videotape. The issue is whether SKEPTICS can be reasonable to say Acts is full of lies. We can. If a witness's story contains nuggets of historical truth, you still don't know if that means honest author, or if it means dishonest author who is trying to make a false story "ring true". Yet you and all conservative Christian apologists simplemindedly insist that the presence of historically accurate details automatically necessitates the conclusion of honest author. Sorry, you lose.
You may not be aware, but we do have ancient accounts of recanting on the part of Christians. Pliny the Younger was Roman lawyer and magistrate who lived from 61-113AD. He served as the governor of Bithynia-Pontus (now located in modern Turkey) under Emperor Trajan, and he conducted trials against those who had been identified as Christians. In a letter he wrote to Trajan in 111-113AD, he said the following: “…in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished… Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ–none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do–these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.”
So his basis for killing some Christians wasn't a hatred of Jesus or attempt to snuff out their religion, but that "I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished..." Pliny cares less about what exactly they are preaching, and cares only to suppress stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy.
What you don't tell the reader is Trajen's response, which forbade Pliny from seeking out Christians: "They are not to be sought out." See here. It is reasonable to conclude that this important ruler didn't perceive the spread of Christianity to be a significant threat. The larger point is that you are misleading your readers by talking about what the ruling authorities could have done to put a stop to Christianity. You falsely assume the spread of Christianity caused the ruling authorities to panic and try to suppress this growing cult. They generally didn't. So if they aren't putting Jesus' corpse in a wheelbarrow and then going on an expensive first century tour through Rome and Palestine, its not because they couldn't, but because they didn't think Christianity was sufficiently significant to justify spending resources on.
Really now, Mr. Warner, how much effort have you put into refuting any heretical miracle claims you think are false? What shall we say about the Protestant christian apologist who never gets around to providing reasons why some Catholic miracle claims are false? Shall we assume you don't make such efforts because you know the miracles are true? Or should we assume you don't both exposing such error because you simply don't give a fuck?
Not every early Christian was willing to die for his or her beliefs. Here we have excellent evidence of second generation Christians recanting their claims to stay alive in the Roman Empire.
That effectively counter-balances any historical evidence that select leaders of the movement, likely with an agenda to make the world a better place, were willing to die.
One thing is certain: The Roman authorities recognized the importance of their efforts to obtain denials from early Christians. Pliny’s work in this regard (recorded very early in history) are evidence of this.
And Trajan's response, which you didn't quote, forbids Pliny from seeking out Christians. Whatever "importance" they thought there was in suppressing Christianity, it wasn't as extreme as you pretend.
Many second generation Christians (who were not eyewitnesses of the Resurrection) recanted their membership in the Christian family to stay alive. Yet there isn’t a single ancient document, letter or piece of evidence indicating any of the Christian eyewitnesses (the apostolic disciples) ever changed their story or surrendered their claims.
But Galatians 2:9 is reasonably interpreted as evidence that the original apostles disobeyed the risen Christ's Great Commission in Matthew 28:19. Is there a significant difference between disobeying the risen Christ, and recanting one's resurrection testimony? No, because you would argue that by seeing the risen Christ, they were "amazingly transformed".
You also have another problem: You act as if Jesus' resurrection is supposed to be some unprecedented act that, if true, would have blown the socks off of Jesus' followers. Sorry...Matthew 10:8 has Jesus requiring his disciples to perform resurrections during one of the missions. If that is true, then it doesn't make sense to pretend that Jesus' own resurrection was deemed by them to be an unexpected game changer. It is senseless to pretend that disciples who had themselves performed resurrection miracles, would later become so utterly mesmerized by Jesus' own resurrection. Perhaps that explains why they disobeyed the risen Christ's Great Commission. And Matthew 28:17 says some of those who saw the risen Christ "doubted". I've examined the arguments of the fools who pretend this only means "hesitant", and I maintain that "doubted" means they didn't think what they were seeing was a truly resurrected person. There is no rule of historiography that obligates anybody to harmonize Matthew's account with John's story of doubting Thomas. So it doesn't matter if you can be reasonable to attempt that harmonization anyway, the question is whether skeptics can be reasonable to refuse such harmonization scenario. They can. You lose.
Given the reasonable expectation of this Roman effort and the evidence from history confirming the trials of Christians, it’s remarkable none of the eyewitnesses ever changed their claims.
What's more remarkable is your gullibility in leaping from "we have no evidence they changed their stories" over to "none of the eyewitnesses ever changed their stories". Do you seriously think that if any of the apostles had changed their stories, the burgeoning Christian church would have desired to preserve this embarrassment for posterity? Gee, how often do religions preserve testimony prejudicial to their cause...and how often do religious get rid of testimony prejudicial to their cause? Aren't you curious as to why letters from the Judaizers were never preserved? Or will you insist that no such letters ever existed? You are required by the book of Acts 15:23 to believe that the leaders of the Judaizers thought sending letters was an acceptable way to deal with the problem of Paul. And I'm pretty sure you are aware that between the 1st and 2nd centuries, various leaders demanded the destruction of Christian works they deemed "heretical". And from Paul's lament that his entire Galatian church had apostatized and adopted the Judaizer gospel (1:6-9), we can be confident that they didn't achieve this solely by word of mouth, but also by letters to each other critical of Paul. Paul's own example of letter writing indicates it was consistent with zealous Judaism to send letters to address local church problems. So yes, we are reasonable to say the lack of 1st century sources critical of Christianity is not due to their never existing, but due to their being destroyed. You are a fool to leap from "we have no evidence the apostles ever changed their story" over to "the apostles never changed their story". Apostle Matthew was the author of the Great Commission in 28:19. If Galatians 2:9 is true, we reasonably infer that he changed his story and stopped telling the world that the risen Christ required him and the orignal apostles to evangelize the Gentiles. If Peter as resurrection eyewitness was as fickle as Galatians 2 says, then he most definitely changed his story, likely several times, at least when facing persecution. If he feared "they of the circumcision" despite their presenting no threat of death, how likely would he fear "they of Rome" who were much more likely to execute him?
Our willingness (as non-witnesses later in history) to die for what we believe has no evidential value, but the willingness of the first disciples to die for what they saw with their own eyes is a critical piece of evidence in the case for Christianity.
So sources that are late, contradictory and are assigned widely varying levels of historical value by professional historians, are "critical" pieces of evidence in the case for Christianity? LOL
The early tradition of the Church related to these deaths is bolstered by the lack of any ancient record of apostolic denial,
then you need to phone Lydia and Tim McGrew. They are conservative Christian apologists who burn in effigy all fools who argue from silence. Nice to know there's no end to the divisions in the body of Christ.
especially given there exist other ancient accounts of public persecution and denials by early Christians.
Which are late, contradictory, and subject to widely varying value judgments from professional historians.
The commitment of the disciples to their claims is compelling.
But not so much as to render those who reject the gospel unreasonable.
Unlike the rest of us, their willingness to die for what they witnessed has tremendous evidential value.
Paul was not an eyewitness, and yet that apostle's resurrection testimony is the only one the NT passes on to posterity in firsthand form.
No comments:
Post a Comment