Oldbear83 said:

---

A lot of Science was repressed by people calling themselves 'scientists'.

Telling how you keep ignoring that.

---

So, we are allowing the Middle Ages to influence our decisions? Everything since doesn't count? Even during the Middle Ages, there were high points such as Acquinas, they founded the University of Paris and had the Crusades to kill Satan worshipping Moslems. They should get some points for that from this Board, No????

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A lot of Science was repressed by people calling themselves 'scientists'.

Telling how you keep ignoring that.

---

So, we are allowing the Middle Ages to influence our decisions? Everything since doesn't count? Even during the Middle Ages, there were high points such as Acquinas, they founded the University of Paris and had the Crusades to kill Satan worshipping Moslems. They should get some points for that from this Board, No????

---

So you imagine there have been no Science cultists since the Middle Ages?

Seriously, just look at the crap thrown out by 'scientists' during the Pandemic.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

A lot of Science was repressed by people calling themselves 'scientists'.

Telling how you keep ignoring that.

---

So, we are allowing the Middle Ages to influence our decisions? Everything since doesn't count? Even during the Middle Ages, there were high points such as Acquinas, they founded the University of Paris and had the Crusades to kill Satan worshipping Moslems. They should get some points for that from this Board, No????

---

So you imagine there have been no Science cultists since the Middle Ages?

Seriously, just look at the crap thrown out by 'scientists' during the Pandemic.

---

Sure there has. There are cults in all walks of life, true believers. People that do wild-**** in the name of some cause. I call it mental illness... : ) It is not unique to the Catholic Church. Actually, I would say those that were in the Church in this category in the Middle Ages, are now Attorneys in Politics. Ever see the Devil's Advocate? Al Pacino plays Satan, he says "The Church was the place to be in the Middle Ages, today it is the Law." I agree...

Oldbear83 said:

---

A lot of Science was repressed by people calling themselves 'scientists'.

Telling how you keep ignoring that.

---

Ignoring what? Repressing what?

Are you referring to members of the Church who repressed knowledge in the dark ages?

Not proof but, amazing evidence

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Not proof but, amazing evidence

---

He got part of it right. Many people had a hand in eventually compiling a written text. The part about no contradictions, and other statements are patently false and shows his ignorance.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Not proof but, amazing evidence

---

He got part of it right. Many people had a hand in eventually compiling a written text. The part about not contradictions, and other statements are patently false and shows his ignorance.

---

Lib,

2 Corinthians 4:4

I'm afraid of being without Him the rest of eternity, He died on the cross for my sins (all of us ) ..to accept that he rose 3 days later is the best gift ever

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Not proof but, amazing evidence

---

He got part of it right. Many people had a hand in eventually compiling a written text. The part about not contradictions, and other statements are patently false and shows his ignorance.

---

Lib,

2 Corinthians 4:4

---

4:4 is contradictory to the whole Christian premiss of presenting a 'good news' message to convert the world.

STxBear81 said:

---

I'm afraid of being without Him the rest of eternity, He died on the cross for my sins (all of us ) ..to accept that he rose 3 days later is the best gift ever

---

At least you're honest about immortality. Kudos.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Not proof but, amazing evidence

---

He got part of it right. Many people had a hand in eventually compiling a written text. The part about not contradictions, and other statements are patently false and shows his ignorance.

---

Lib,

2 Corinthians 4:4

---

4:4 is contradictory to the whole Christian premiss of presenting a 'good news' message to convert the world.

---

except its not.. you have to read scripture and pray to Jesus for understanding and it will come to you.

If you would like more then I will be happy to engage further. If you want to continue to deny and rebuke then I offer you to have a blessed day.

I will and I am sure others will continue to pray for your salvation whether you chose it or not.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I have yet to find sufficient evidence (scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or otherwise) that convincingly demonstrates the validity of Christianity's core claims.

---

Thanks for the honest answer.

What things about the Bible and/or about Jesus do you believe if any?

---

I believe the Bible is a collection of ancient texts with history, mythology/allegory, and theology/philosophy all interwoven together.

As for Jesus, I think it's almost certain he was a real historical figure, he was a Jewish man from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers and taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and some of his followers believed he rose from the dead and continued spreading his message.

There's plenty more obviously, but hopeful that helps answer at a high level.

---

You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead.

Also, that despite some very vigorous efforts by Jewish and Roman authorities to suppress and wipe out the believers, the Church survived, thrived and in the end is still here long after its persecutors passed on.

Quite the historic anomaly.

---

We have very few early sources for the disciples' martyrdoms and none being contemporary.

Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. Acts records the execution of James son of Zebedee, though its dating is debated.

Most of what people think about how specific apostles died comes from Eusebius and apocryphal texts written centuries later.

---

Just as there is no contradictory record of the empty tomb, there is no contradictory record of the martyrdom of the apostles.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/

---

Thank you for sharing the article. I read through it and its core argument is essentially: early Christian tradition says they died as martyrs, no ancient source contradicts it, therefore it's reliable. But that reasoning has a few problems - I'll try to respond to each of its three points made.

First, it leans on Acts as evidence the disciples were headed toward martyrdom. The issue is that Acts is a Christian document written by someone already committed to the faith (unlike some of the sources in my OP), so it's not an independent external source. Using it to validate claims made by that same belief system is circular.

Second, it argues the martyrdom tradition is uniform with no contradictory ancient record. But absence of contradiction isn't evidence something happened, that's an argument from silence. Given how little was documented about minor figures in a small 1st century sect, it's honestly just what you'd expect, regardless of what happened.

Third, it points to later Christians dying for their faith as corroboration of the original accounts. But those people were dying for their belief in the apostolic testimony, not because they had independent knowledge of what happened. This only tells us the tradition spread, not that it's true.

Answered in the post you quoted.

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I have yet to find sufficient evidence (scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or otherwise) that convincingly demonstrates the validity of Christianity's core claims.

---

Thanks for the honest answer.

What things about the Bible and/or about Jesus do you believe if any?

---

I believe the Bible is a collection of ancient texts with history, mythology/allegory, and theology/philosophy all interwoven together.

As for Jesus, I think it's almost certain he was a real historical figure, he was a Jewish man from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers and taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and some of his followers believed he rose from the dead and continued spreading his message.

There's plenty more obviously, but hopeful that helps answer at a high level.

---

You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead.

Also, that despite some very vigorous efforts by Jewish and Roman authorities to suppress and wipe out the believers, the Church survived, thrived and in the end is still here long after its persecutors passed on.

Quite the historic anomaly.

---

We have very few early sources for the disciples' martyrdoms and none being contemporary.

Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. Acts records the execution of James son of Zebedee, though its dating is debated.

Most of what people think about how specific apostles died comes from Eusebius and apocryphal texts written centuries later.

---

Just as there is no contradictory record of the empty tomb, there is no contradictory record of the martyrdom of the apostles.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/

---

Thank you for sharing the article. I read through it and its core argument is essentially: early Christian tradition says they died as martyrs, no ancient source contradicts it, therefore it's reliable. But that reasoning has a few problems - I'll try to respond to each of its three points made.

First, it leans on Acts as evidence the disciples were headed toward martyrdom. The issue is that Acts is a Christian document written by someone already committed to the faith (unlike some of the sources in my OP), so it's not an independent external source. Using it to validate claims made by that same belief system is circular.

Second, it argues the martyrdom tradition is uniform with no contradictory ancient record. But absence of contradiction isn't evidence something happened, that's an argument from silence. Given how little was documented about minor figures in a small 1st century sect, it's honestly just what you'd expect, regardless of what happened.

Third, it points to later Christians dying for their faith as corroboration of the original accounts. But those people were dying for their belief in the apostolic testimony, not because they had independent knowledge of what happened. This only tells us the tradition spread, not that it's true.

---

First, evidence includes Josephus documenting James' execution (AD 62), and writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp (late 1st/early 2nd century) confirming the violent deaths of Peter and Paul. This is not circular reasoning.

Second, Numerous non-biblical, early Christian, and secular writings from the late 1st to 2nd centuries mention the apostles, particularly Peter, Paul, and John. Key sources include the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias) and Roman historians like Tacitus, who corroborate the apostles' ministry, leadership, and martyrdom

They were more than minor figures in their time, especially for the Romans and Jews wanting to stop the growth of the church. Not only was there plenty of opportunity to write contradictory accounts, there was plenty of reason to write contradictory accounts and yet, there are none.

Third, that's true for anyone a generation or more after the contemporaries die. However, if there was evidence to the contrary that the apostles did not die as martyrs there is a strong likelihood that would have been presented to get the later Christians to recant.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I have yet to find sufficient evidence (scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or otherwise) that convincingly demonstrates the validity of Christianity's core claims.

---

Thanks for the honest answer.

What things about the Bible and/or about Jesus do you believe if any?

---

I believe the Bible is a collection of ancient texts with history, mythology/allegory, and theology/philosophy all interwoven together.

As for Jesus, I think it's almost certain he was a real historical figure, he was a Jewish man from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers and taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and some of his followers believed he rose from the dead and continued spreading his message.

There's plenty more obviously, but hopeful that helps answer at a high level.

---

You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead.

Also, that despite some very vigorous efforts by Jewish and Roman authorities to suppress and wipe out the believers, the Church survived, thrived and in the end is still here long after its persecutors passed on.

Quite the historic anomaly.

---

We have very few early sources for the disciples' martyrdoms and none being contemporary.

Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. Acts records the execution of James son of Zebedee, though its dating is debated.

Most of what people think about how specific apostles died comes from Eusebius and apocryphal texts written centuries later.

---

Just as there is no contradictory record of the empty tomb, there is no contradictory record of the martyrdom of the apostles.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/

---

Thank you for sharing the article. I read through it and its core argument is essentially: early Christian tradition says they died as martyrs, no ancient source contradicts it, therefore it's reliable. But that reasoning has a few problems - I'll try to respond to each of its three points made.

First, it leans on Acts as evidence the disciples were headed toward martyrdom. The issue is that Acts is a Christian document written by someone already committed to the faith (unlike some of the sources in my OP), so it's not an independent external source. Using it to validate claims made by that same belief system is circular.

Second, it argues the martyrdom tradition is uniform with no contradictory ancient record. But absence of contradiction isn't evidence something happened, that's an argument from silence. Given how little was documented about minor figures in a small 1st century sect, it's honestly just what you'd expect, regardless of what happened.

Third, it points to later Christians dying for their faith as corroboration of the original accounts. But those people were dying for their belief in the apostolic testimony, not because they had independent knowledge of what happened. This only tells us the tradition spread, not that it's true.

---

First, evidence includes Josephus documenting James' execution (AD 62), and writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp (late 1st/early 2nd century) confirming the violent deaths of Peter and Paul. This is not circular reasoning.

Second, Numerous non-biblical, early Christian, and secular writings from the late 1st to 2nd centuries mention the apostles, particularly Peter, Paul, and John. Key sources include the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias) and Roman historians like Tacitus, who corroborate the apostles' ministry, leadership, and martyrdom

They were more than minor figures in their time, especially for the Romans and Jews wanting to stop the growth of the church. Not only was there plenty of opportunity to write contradictory accounts, there was plenty of reason to write contradictory accounts and yet, there are none.

Third, that's true for anyone a generation or more after the contemporaries die. However, if there was evidence to the contrary that the apostles did not die as martyrs there is a strong likelihood that would have been presented to get the later Christians to recant.

---

Genuine question: did you read the post you originally responded to lol? I mentioned most of these sources already:
"Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. …."

These are certainly better than acts, but are still not contemporary.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the missing contradictory accounts portion.

The word 'contradictory' usually means two statements which oppose each other. I don't see any accepted statements saying the historical accounts are false.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Not proof but, amazing evidence

---

He got part of it right. Many people had a hand in eventually compiling a written text. The part about not contradictions, and other statements are patently false and shows his ignorance.

---

Lib,

2 Corinthians 4:4

---

4:4 is contradictory to the whole Christian premiss of presenting a 'good news' message to convert the world.

---

From the start there have been deniers of the faith regardless of the evidence.

Pharaoh was on the receiving end of miraculous plagues

Christ sent apostles out and told them to shake the dust from their feet and to move on when coming across those that would not welcome their teaching.

Even the rich young ruler who put his riches before Christ, walked away.

Your view of 2 Corinthians 4:4 is simply wrong. It is not a contradiction but proof that "narrow is the gate". Did you not use your free will to walk away from your faith?

When did you move from being a septic to a cynic? It seems the passage applies, sadly.

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I have yet to find sufficient evidence (scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or otherwise) that convincingly demonstrates the validity of Christianity's core claims.

---

Thanks for the honest answer.

What things about the Bible and/or about Jesus do you believe if any?

---

I believe the Bible is a collection of ancient texts with history, mythology/allegory, and theology/philosophy all interwoven together.

As for Jesus, I think it's almost certain he was a real historical figure, he was a Jewish man from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers and taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and some of his followers believed he rose from the dead and continued spreading his message.

There's plenty more obviously, but hopeful that helps answer at a high level.

---

You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead.

Also, that despite some very vigorous efforts by Jewish and Roman authorities to suppress and wipe out the believers, the Church survived, thrived and in the end is still here long after its persecutors passed on.

Quite the historic anomaly.

---

We have very few early sources for the disciples' martyrdoms and none being contemporary.

Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. Acts records the execution of James son of Zebedee, though its dating is debated.

Most of what people think about how specific apostles died comes from Eusebius and apocryphal texts written centuries later.

---

Just as there is no contradictory record of the empty tomb, there is no contradictory record of the martyrdom of the apostles.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/

---

Thank you for sharing the article. I read through it and its core argument is essentially: early Christian tradition says they died as martyrs, no ancient source contradicts it, therefore it's reliable. But that reasoning has a few problems - I'll try to respond to each of its three points made.

First, it leans on Acts as evidence the disciples were headed toward martyrdom. The issue is that Acts is a Christian document written by someone already committed to the faith (unlike some of the sources in my OP), so it's not an independent external source. Using it to validate claims made by that same belief system is circular.

Second, it argues the martyrdom tradition is uniform with no contradictory ancient record. But absence of contradiction isn't evidence something happened, that's an argument from silence. Given how little was documented about minor figures in a small 1st century sect, it's honestly just what you'd expect, regardless of what happened.

Third, it points to later Christians dying for their faith as corroboration of the original accounts. But those people were dying for their belief in the apostolic testimony, not because they had independent knowledge of what happened. This only tells us the tradition spread, not that it's true.

---

First, evidence includes Josephus documenting James' execution (AD 62), and writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp (late 1st/early 2nd century) confirming the violent deaths of Peter and Paul. This is not circular reasoning.

Second, Numerous non-biblical, early Christian, and secular writings from the late 1st to 2nd centuries mention the apostles, particularly Peter, Paul, and John. Key sources include the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias) and Roman historians like Tacitus, who corroborate the apostles' ministry, leadership, and martyrdom

They were more than minor figures in their time, especially for the Romans and Jews wanting to stop the growth of the church. Not only was there plenty of opportunity to write contradictory accounts, there was plenty of reason to write contradictory accounts and yet, there are none.

Third, that's true for anyone a generation or more after the contemporaries die. However, if there was evidence to the contrary that the apostles did not die as martyrs there is a strong likelihood that would have been presented to get the later Christians to recant.

---

Genuine question: did you read the post you originally responded to lol? I mentioned most of these sources already:
"Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. …."

These are certainly better than acts, but are still not contemporary.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the missing contradictory accounts portion.

---

You want a dated Jerusalem Post article. 30 years is extremely close for a historical account during that timeframe. EXTREMELY CLOSE

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I have yet to find sufficient evidence (scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or otherwise) that convincingly demonstrates the validity of Christianity's core claims.

---

Thanks for the honest answer.

What things about the Bible and/or about Jesus do you believe if any?

---

I believe the Bible is a collection of ancient texts with history, mythology/allegory, and theology/philosophy all interwoven together.

As for Jesus, I think it's almost certain he was a real historical figure, he was a Jewish man from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers and taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and some of his followers believed he rose from the dead and continued spreading his message.

There's plenty more obviously, but hopeful that helps answer at a high level.

---

You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead.

Also, that despite some very vigorous efforts by Jewish and Roman authorities to suppress and wipe out the believers, the Church survived, thrived and in the end is still here long after its persecutors passed on.

Quite the historic anomaly.

---

We have very few early sources for the disciples' martyrdoms and none being contemporary.

Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. Acts records the execution of James son of Zebedee, though its dating is debated.

Most of what people think about how specific apostles died comes from Eusebius and apocryphal texts written centuries later.

---

Just as there is no contradictory record of the empty tomb, there is no contradictory record of the martyrdom of the apostles.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/

---

Thank you for sharing the article. I read through it and its core argument is essentially: early Christian tradition says they died as martyrs, no ancient source contradicts it, therefore it's reliable. But that reasoning has a few problems - I'll try to respond to each of its three points made.

First, it leans on Acts as evidence the disciples were headed toward martyrdom. The issue is that Acts is a Christian document written by someone already committed to the faith (unlike some of the sources in my OP), so it's not an independent external source. Using it to validate claims made by that same belief system is circular.

Second, it argues the martyrdom tradition is uniform with no contradictory ancient record. But absence of contradiction isn't evidence something happened, that's an argument from silence. Given how little was documented about minor figures in a small 1st century sect, it's honestly just what you'd expect, regardless of what happened.

Third, it points to later Christians dying for their faith as corroboration of the original accounts. But those people were dying for their belief in the apostolic testimony, not because they had independent knowledge of what happened. This only tells us the tradition spread, not that it's true.

---

First, evidence includes Josephus documenting James' execution (AD 62), and writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp (late 1st/early 2nd century) confirming the violent deaths of Peter and Paul. This is not circular reasoning.

Second, Numerous non-biblical, early Christian, and secular writings from the late 1st to 2nd centuries mention the apostles, particularly Peter, Paul, and John. Key sources include the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias) and Roman historians like Tacitus, who corroborate the apostles' ministry, leadership, and martyrdom

They were more than minor figures in their time, especially for the Romans and Jews wanting to stop the growth of the church. Not only was there plenty of opportunity to write contradictory accounts, there was plenty of reason to write contradictory accounts and yet, there are none.

Third, that's true for anyone a generation or more after the contemporaries die. However, if there was evidence to the contrary that the apostles did not die as martyrs there is a strong likelihood that would have been presented to get the later Christians to recant.

---

Genuine question: did you read the post you originally responded to lol? I mentioned most of these sources already:
"Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. …."

These are certainly better than acts, but are still not contemporary.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the missing contradictory accounts portion.

---

You want a dated Jerusalem Post article. 30 years is extremely close for a historical account during that timeframe. EXTREMELY CLOSE

---

My point was simply that we don't have any contemporary sources, with the vast majority coming a century or more later from Christian sources.

I think it's plausible, if not likely, that a handful of early Christians were martyrs, but I'm not convinced in the church tradition that most of the 12 were martyrs.

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I have yet to find sufficient evidence (scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or otherwise) that convincingly demonstrates the validity of Christianity's core claims.

---

Thanks for the honest answer.

What things about the Bible and/or about Jesus do you believe if any?

---

I believe the Bible is a collection of ancient texts with history, mythology/allegory, and theology/philosophy all interwoven together.

As for Jesus, I think it's almost certain he was a real historical figure, he was a Jewish man from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers and taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and some of his followers believed he rose from the dead and continued spreading his message.

There's plenty more obviously, but hopeful that helps answer at a high level.

---

You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead.

Also, that despite some very vigorous efforts by Jewish and Roman authorities to suppress and wipe out the believers, the Church survived, thrived and in the end is still here long after its persecutors passed on.

Quite the historic anomaly.

---

We have very few early sources for the disciples' martyrdoms and none being contemporary.

Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. Acts records the execution of James son of Zebedee, though its dating is debated.

Most of what people think about how specific apostles died comes from Eusebius and apocryphal texts written centuries later.

---

Just as there is no contradictory record of the empty tomb, there is no contradictory record of the martyrdom of the apostles.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/

---

Thank you for sharing the article. I read through it and its core argument is essentially: early Christian tradition says they died as martyrs, no ancient source contradicts it, therefore it's reliable. But that reasoning has a few problems - I'll try to respond to each of its three points made.

First, it leans on Acts as evidence the disciples were headed toward martyrdom. The issue is that Acts is a Christian document written by someone already committed to the faith (unlike some of the sources in my OP), so it's not an independent external source. Using it to validate claims made by that same belief system is circular.

Second, it argues the martyrdom tradition is uniform with no contradictory ancient record. But absence of contradiction isn't evidence something happened, that's an argument from silence. Given how little was documented about minor figures in a small 1st century sect, it's honestly just what you'd expect, regardless of what happened.

Third, it points to later Christians dying for their faith as corroboration of the original accounts. But those people were dying for their belief in the apostolic testimony, not because they had independent knowledge of what happened. This only tells us the tradition spread, not that it's true.

---

First, evidence includes Josephus documenting James' execution (AD 62), and writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp (late 1st/early 2nd century) confirming the violent deaths of Peter and Paul. This is not circular reasoning.

Second, Numerous non-biblical, early Christian, and secular writings from the late 1st to 2nd centuries mention the apostles, particularly Peter, Paul, and John. Key sources include the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias) and Roman historians like Tacitus, who corroborate the apostles' ministry, leadership, and martyrdom

They were more than minor figures in their time, especially for the Romans and Jews wanting to stop the growth of the church. Not only was there plenty of opportunity to write contradictory accounts, there was plenty of reason to write contradictory accounts and yet, there are none.

Third, that's true for anyone a generation or more after the contemporaries die. However, if there was evidence to the contrary that the apostles did not die as martyrs there is a strong likelihood that would have been presented to get the later Christians to recant.

---

Genuine question: did you read the post you originally responded to lol? I mentioned most of these sources already:
"Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. …."

These are certainly better than acts, but are still not contemporary.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the missing contradictory accounts portion.

---

You want a dated Jerusalem Post article. 30 years is extremely close for a historical account during that timeframe. EXTREMELY CLOSE

---

My point was simply that we don't have any contemporary sources, with the vast majority coming a century or more later from Christian sources.

I think it's plausible, if not likely, that a handful of early Christians were martyrs, but I'm not convinced in the church tradition that most of the 12 were martyrs.

---

How many of the eyewitnesses need to be martyred to make a convincing argument, 2, 6, more?

J Warner Wallace, a cold case detective used the same analytical tools he uses for murder cases to looked at the death and resurrection of Christ. He describes the evidence as being "death by 1000 cuts"-so many small things all pointing the same direction. He says the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

His book, Cold Case Christianity, addresses many of the arguments made in this thread

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I have yet to find sufficient evidence (scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or otherwise) that convincingly demonstrates the validity of Christianity's core claims.

---

Thanks for the honest answer.

What things about the Bible and/or about Jesus do you believe if any?

---

I believe the Bible is a collection of ancient texts with history, mythology/allegory, and theology/philosophy all interwoven together.

As for Jesus, I think it's almost certain he was a real historical figure, he was a Jewish man from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers and taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and some of his followers believed he rose from the dead and continued spreading his message.

There's plenty more obviously, but hopeful that helps answer at a high level.

---

You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead.

Also, that despite some very vigorous efforts by Jewish and Roman authorities to suppress and wipe out the believers, the Church survived, thrived and in the end is still here long after its persecutors passed on.

Quite the historic anomaly.

---

We have very few early sources for the disciples' martyrdoms and none being contemporary.

Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. Acts records the execution of James son of Zebedee, though its dating is debated.

Most of what people think about how specific apostles died comes from Eusebius and apocryphal texts written centuries later.

---

Just as there is no contradictory record of the empty tomb, there is no contradictory record of the martyrdom of the apostles.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/

---

Thank you for sharing the article. I read through it and its core argument is essentially: early Christian tradition says they died as martyrs, no ancient source contradicts it, therefore it's reliable. But that reasoning has a few problems - I'll try to respond to each of its three points made.

First, it leans on Acts as evidence the disciples were headed toward martyrdom. The issue is that Acts is a Christian document written by someone already committed to the faith (unlike some of the sources in my OP), so it's not an independent external source. Using it to validate claims made by that same belief system is circular.

Second, it argues the martyrdom tradition is uniform with no contradictory ancient record. But absence of contradiction isn't evidence something happened, that's an argument from silence. Given how little was documented about minor figures in a small 1st century sect, it's honestly just what you'd expect, regardless of what happened.

Third, it points to later Christians dying for their faith as corroboration of the original accounts. But those people were dying for their belief in the apostolic testimony, not because they had independent knowledge of what happened. This only tells us the tradition spread, not that it's true.

---

First, evidence includes Josephus documenting James' execution (AD 62), and writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp (late 1st/early 2nd century) confirming the violent deaths of Peter and Paul. This is not circular reasoning.

Second, Numerous non-biblical, early Christian, and secular writings from the late 1st to 2nd centuries mention the apostles, particularly Peter, Paul, and John. Key sources include the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias) and Roman historians like Tacitus, who corroborate the apostles' ministry, leadership, and martyrdom

They were more than minor figures in their time, especially for the Romans and Jews wanting to stop the growth of the church. Not only was there plenty of opportunity to write contradictory accounts, there was plenty of reason to write contradictory accounts and yet, there are none.

Third, that's true for anyone a generation or more after the contemporaries die. However, if there was evidence to the contrary that the apostles did not die as martyrs there is a strong likelihood that would have been presented to get the later Christians to recant.

---

Genuine question: did you read the post you originally responded to lol? I mentioned most of these sources already:
"Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. …."

These are certainly better than acts, but are still not contemporary.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the missing contradictory accounts portion.

---

You want a dated Jerusalem Post article. 30 years is extremely close for a historical account during that timeframe. EXTREMELY CLOSE

---

My point was simply that we don't have any contemporary sources, with the vast majority coming a century or more later from Christian sources.

I think it's plausible, if not likely, that a handful of early Christians were martyrs, but I'm not convinced in the church tradition that most of the 12 were martyrs.

---

Your problem, BearWithMe, is that there is no evidence that the 12 were NOT martyred. So the accounts that they were are unopposed.

You may disbelieve, of course, but that opinion does not invalidate the extant evidence.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I have yet to find sufficient evidence (scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or otherwise) that convincingly demonstrates the validity of Christianity's core claims.

---

Thanks for the honest answer.

What things about the Bible and/or about Jesus do you believe if any?

---

I believe the Bible is a collection of ancient texts with history, mythology/allegory, and theology/philosophy all interwoven together.

As for Jesus, I think it's almost certain he was a real historical figure, he was a Jewish man from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers and taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and some of his followers believed he rose from the dead and continued spreading his message.

There's plenty more obviously, but hopeful that helps answer at a high level.

---

You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead.

Also, that despite some very vigorous efforts by Jewish and Roman authorities to suppress and wipe out the believers, the Church survived, thrived and in the end is still here long after its persecutors passed on.

Quite the historic anomaly.

---

We have very few early sources for the disciples' martyrdoms and none being contemporary.

Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. Acts records the execution of James son of Zebedee, though its dating is debated.

Most of what people think about how specific apostles died comes from Eusebius and apocryphal texts written centuries later.

---

Just as there is no contradictory record of the empty tomb, there is no contradictory record of the martyrdom of the apostles.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/

---

Thank you for sharing the article. I read through it and its core argument is essentially: early Christian tradition says they died as martyrs, no ancient source contradicts it, therefore it's reliable. But that reasoning has a few problems - I'll try to respond to each of its three points made.

First, it leans on Acts as evidence the disciples were headed toward martyrdom. The issue is that Acts is a Christian document written by someone already committed to the faith (unlike some of the sources in my OP), so it's not an independent external source. Using it to validate claims made by that same belief system is circular.

Second, it argues the martyrdom tradition is uniform with no contradictory ancient record. But absence of contradiction isn't evidence something happened, that's an argument from silence. Given how little was documented about minor figures in a small 1st century sect, it's honestly just what you'd expect, regardless of what happened.

Third, it points to later Christians dying for their faith as corroboration of the original accounts. But those people were dying for their belief in the apostolic testimony, not because they had independent knowledge of what happened. This only tells us the tradition spread, not that it's true.

---

First, evidence includes Josephus documenting James' execution (AD 62), and writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp (late 1st/early 2nd century) confirming the violent deaths of Peter and Paul. This is not circular reasoning.

Second, Numerous non-biblical, early Christian, and secular writings from the late 1st to 2nd centuries mention the apostles, particularly Peter, Paul, and John. Key sources include the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias) and Roman historians like Tacitus, who corroborate the apostles' ministry, leadership, and martyrdom

They were more than minor figures in their time, especially for the Romans and Jews wanting to stop the growth of the church. Not only was there plenty of opportunity to write contradictory accounts, there was plenty of reason to write contradictory accounts and yet, there are none.

Third, that's true for anyone a generation or more after the contemporaries die. However, if there was evidence to the contrary that the apostles did not die as martyrs there is a strong likelihood that would have been presented to get the later Christians to recant.

---

Genuine question: did you read the post you originally responded to lol? I mentioned most of these sources already:
"Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. …."

These are certainly better than acts, but are still not contemporary.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the missing contradictory accounts portion.

---

You want a dated Jerusalem Post article. 30 years is extremely close for a historical account during that timeframe. EXTREMELY CLOSE

---

My point was simply that we don't have any contemporary sources, with the vast majority coming a century or more later from Christian sources.

I think it's plausible, if not likely, that a handful of early Christians were martyrs, but I'm not convinced in the church tradition that most of the 12 were martyrs.

---

How many of the eyewitnesses need to be martyred to make a convincing argument, 2, 6, more?

J Warner Wallace, a cold case detective used the same analytical tools he uses for murder cases to looked at the death and resurrection of Christ. He describes the evidence as being "death by 1000 cuts"-so many small things all pointing the same direction. He says the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

His book, Cold Case Christianity, addresses many of the arguments made in this thread

---

As I stated earlier, I don't believe most of the 12 were martyred outside James, and maybe Peter. I'm only being more defensive as your original claim was:
"You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead."

I have read Cold Case Christianity actually, as well as about two dozen other apologetic books and counter apologetic books. Was not a fan of Wallace personally.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I have yet to find sufficient evidence (scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or otherwise) that convincingly demonstrates the validity of Christianity's core claims.

---

Thanks for the honest answer.

What things about the Bible and/or about Jesus do you believe if any?

---

I believe the Bible is a collection of ancient texts with history, mythology/allegory, and theology/philosophy all interwoven together.

As for Jesus, I think it's almost certain he was a real historical figure, he was a Jewish man from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers and taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and some of his followers believed he rose from the dead and continued spreading his message.

There's plenty more obviously, but hopeful that helps answer at a high level.

---

You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead.

Also, that despite some very vigorous efforts by Jewish and Roman authorities to suppress and wipe out the believers, the Church survived, thrived and in the end is still here long after its persecutors passed on.

Quite the historic anomaly.

---

We have very few early sources for the disciples' martyrdoms and none being contemporary.

Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. Acts records the execution of James son of Zebedee, though its dating is debated.

Most of what people think about how specific apostles died comes from Eusebius and apocryphal texts written centuries later.

---

Just as there is no contradictory record of the empty tomb, there is no contradictory record of the martyrdom of the apostles.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/

---

Thank you for sharing the article. I read through it and its core argument is essentially: early Christian tradition says they died as martyrs, no ancient source contradicts it, therefore it's reliable. But that reasoning has a few problems - I'll try to respond to each of its three points made.

First, it leans on Acts as evidence the disciples were headed toward martyrdom. The issue is that Acts is a Christian document written by someone already committed to the faith (unlike some of the sources in my OP), so it's not an independent external source. Using it to validate claims made by that same belief system is circular.

Second, it argues the martyrdom tradition is uniform with no contradictory ancient record. But absence of contradiction isn't evidence something happened, that's an argument from silence. Given how little was documented about minor figures in a small 1st century sect, it's honestly just what you'd expect, regardless of what happened.

Third, it points to later Christians dying for their faith as corroboration of the original accounts. But those people were dying for their belief in the apostolic testimony, not because they had independent knowledge of what happened. This only tells us the tradition spread, not that it's true.

---

First, evidence includes Josephus documenting James' execution (AD 62), and writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp (late 1st/early 2nd century) confirming the violent deaths of Peter and Paul. This is not circular reasoning.

Second, Numerous non-biblical, early Christian, and secular writings from the late 1st to 2nd centuries mention the apostles, particularly Peter, Paul, and John. Key sources include the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias) and Roman historians like Tacitus, who corroborate the apostles' ministry, leadership, and martyrdom

They were more than minor figures in their time, especially for the Romans and Jews wanting to stop the growth of the church. Not only was there plenty of opportunity to write contradictory accounts, there was plenty of reason to write contradictory accounts and yet, there are none.

Third, that's true for anyone a generation or more after the contemporaries die. However, if there was evidence to the contrary that the apostles did not die as martyrs there is a strong likelihood that would have been presented to get the later Christians to recant.

---

Genuine question: did you read the post you originally responded to lol? I mentioned most of these sources already:
"Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. …."

These are certainly better than acts, but are still not contemporary.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the missing contradictory accounts portion.

---

You want a dated Jerusalem Post article. 30 years is extremely close for a historical account during that timeframe. EXTREMELY CLOSE

---

My point was simply that we don't have any contemporary sources, with the vast majority coming a century or more later from Christian sources.

I think it's plausible, if not likely, that a handful of early Christians were martyrs, but I'm not convinced in the church tradition that most of the 12 were martyrs.

---

Your problem, BearWithMe, is that there is no evidence that the 12 were NOT martyred. So the accounts that they were are unopposed.

You may disbelieve, of course, but that opinion does not invalidate the extant evidence.

---

This line of logic would validate the martyrdom traditions of virtually every religion.

I'm not interested in the evidence we don't have, but evaluating what we do have - and IMO it is not convincing.

But again, you are simply stating an opinion, not evidence.

That's the point.

Oldbear83 said:

---

But again, you are simply stating an opinion, not evidence.

That's the point.

---

Agreed - it is my opinion that I do not find the evidence compelling.

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

But again, you are simply stating an opinion, not evidence.

That's the point.

---

Agreed - it is my opinion that I do not find the evidence compelling.

---

Do you assign any weight to the archaeological finds that match stories in the Bible such as Caiaphas Ossuary, Pilate Stone, Pool of Siloam, Mowbite Stone, Nabonidus Cylinder or any of a multitude of others?

Do you assign any weight to the fulfilled prophecy in the Bible ? Approximately 300 of which are Messianic predictions fulfilled by Christ?

Of all the arguments FOR Christianity, what do you believe is the strongest argument you e read/heard?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

But again, you are simply stating an opinion, not evidence.

That's the point.

---

Agreed - it is my opinion that I do not find the evidence compelling.

---

Do you assign any weight to the archaeological finds that match stories in the Bible such as Caiaphas Ossuary, Pilate Stone, Pool of Siloam, Mowbite Stone, Nabonidus Cylinder or any of a multitude of others?

Do you assign any weight to the fulfilled prophecy in the Bible ? Approximately 300 of which are Messianic predictions fulfilled by Christ?

Of all the arguments FOR Christianity, what do you believe is the strongest argument you e read/heard?

---

These are all great questions, so I'll try to answer them appropriately. On the archaeological finds, yes I do assign weight to those. They confirm the Bible contains genuine historical detail and that's meaningful. In my original post I mentioned that the Bible is a mix of history, theology, philosophy, and mythology, so I certainly believe historical people, locations, and events are present.

For the prophesies, we probably differ more here. Many of the prophecies are vague enough to be applied retroactively, written towards, and are heavily debated even between Christian denominations.

As for the strongest argument for Christianity, I think it's the historical case for the resurrection. Something clearly happened that caused at least some of the early disciples to believe Jesus rose from the dead, whether that's physically or spiritually. Since the gospels are anonymous though and came 30-70 years after the events, it's difficult to untangle what's fact and fiction.

I'll add a bonus regarding arguments for God: I think the most convincing argument is the Leibnizian Contingency Argument. There are a few others, but this one is the most difficult to counterargue. However I will mention this is for a necessary being, not a specific God.

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

But again, you are simply stating an opinion, not evidence.

That's the point.

---

Agreed - it is my opinion that I do not find the evidence compelling.

---

Do you assign any weight to the archaeological finds that match stories in the Bible such as Caiaphas Ossuary, Pilate Stone, Pool of Siloam, Mowbite Stone, Nabonidus Cylinder or any of a multitude of others?

Do you assign any weight to the fulfilled prophecy in the Bible ? Approximately 300 of which are Messianic predictions fulfilled by Christ?

Of all the arguments FOR Christianity, what do you believe is the strongest argument you e read/heard?

---

These are all great questions, so I'll try to answer them appropriately. On the archaeological finds, yes I do assign weight to those. They confirm the Bible contains genuine historical detail and that's meaningful. In my original post I mentioned that the Bible is a mix of history, theology, philosophy, and mythology, so I certainly believe historical people, locations, and events are present.

For the prophesies, we probably differ more here. Many of the prophecies are vague enough to be applied retroactively, written towards, and are heavily debated even between Christian denominations.

As for the strongest argument for Christianity, I think it's the historical case for the resurrection. Something clearly happened that caused at least some of the early disciples to believe Jesus rose from the dead, whether that's physically or spiritually. Since the gospels are anonymous though and came 30-70 years after the events, it's difficult to untangle what's fact and fiction.

I'll add a bonus regarding arguments for God: I think the most convincing argument is the Leibnizian Contingency Argument. There are a few others, but this one is the most difficult to counterargue. However I will mention this is for a necessary being, not a specific God.

---

I think I agree with you on the resurrection except, you offer "whether that's spiritually or physically". If it were merely a spiritual resurrection, the Roman soldiers could have easily debunked that with their own eyewitness testimony. It would have been of great benefit to the Romans to do so.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

But again, you are simply stating an opinion, not evidence.

That's the point.

---

Agreed - it is my opinion that I do not find the evidence compelling.

---

Do you assign any weight to the archaeological finds that match stories in the Bible such as Caiaphas Ossuary, Pilate Stone, Pool of Siloam, Mowbite Stone, Nabonidus Cylinder or any of a multitude of others?

Do you assign any weight to the fulfilled prophecy in the Bible ? Approximately 300 of which are Messianic predictions fulfilled by Christ?

Of all the arguments FOR Christianity, what do you believe is the strongest argument you e read/heard?

---

These are all great questions, so I'll try to answer them appropriately. On the archaeological finds, yes I do assign weight to those. They confirm the Bible contains genuine historical detail and that's meaningful. In my original post I mentioned that the Bible is a mix of history, theology, philosophy, and mythology, so I certainly believe historical people, locations, and events are present.

For the prophesies, we probably differ more here. Many of the prophecies are vague enough to be applied retroactively, written towards, and are heavily debated even between Christian denominations.

As for the strongest argument for Christianity, I think it's the historical case for the resurrection. Something clearly happened that caused at least some of the early disciples to believe Jesus rose from the dead, whether that's physically or spiritually. Since the gospels are anonymous though and came 30-70 years after the events, it's difficult to untangle what's fact and fiction.

I'll add a bonus regarding arguments for God: I think the most convincing argument is the Leibnizian Contingency Argument. There are a few others, but this one is the most difficult to counterargue. However I will mention this is for a necessary being, not a specific God.

---

I think I agree with you on the resurrection except, you offer "whether that's spiritually or physically". If it were merely a spiritual resurrection, the Roman soldiers could have easily debunked that with their own eyewitness testimony. It would have been of great benefit to the Romans to do so.

---

I included that due to a minority of early Christians believing it was spiritual (the gnostics), but the vast majority of surviving texts definitely points towards the predominant belief being physical.

Probably can just agree to disagree on the Roman testimony portion, since that is similar to the argument of silence discussed earlier for the Martyrs. It's hard enough as it is to read ancient texts and understand the motives behind them. It's nearly impossible to understand motives on something not recorded.

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

But again, you are simply stating an opinion, not evidence.

That's the point.

---

Agreed - it is my opinion that I do not find the evidence compelling.

---

Do you assign any weight to the archaeological finds that match stories in the Bible such as Caiaphas Ossuary, Pilate Stone, Pool of Siloam, Mowbite Stone, Nabonidus Cylinder or any of a multitude of others?

Do you assign any weight to the fulfilled prophecy in the Bible ? Approximately 300 of which are Messianic predictions fulfilled by Christ?

Of all the arguments FOR Christianity, what do you believe is the strongest argument you e read/heard?

---

These are all great questions, so I'll try to answer them appropriately. On the archaeological finds, yes I do assign weight to those. They confirm the Bible contains genuine historical detail and that's meaningful. In my original post I mentioned that the Bible is a mix of history, theology, philosophy, and mythology, so I certainly believe historical people, locations, and events are present.

For the prophesies, we probably differ more here. Many of the prophecies are vague enough to be applied retroactively, written towards, and are heavily debated even between Christian denominations.

As for the strongest argument for Christianity, I think it's the historical case for the resurrection. Something clearly happened that caused at least some of the early disciples to believe Jesus rose from the dead, whether that's physically or spiritually. Since the gospels are anonymous though and came 30-70 years after the events, it's difficult to untangle what's fact and fiction.

I'll add a bonus regarding arguments for God: I think the most convincing argument is the Leibnizian Contingency Argument. There are a few others, but this one is the most difficult to counterargue. However I will mention this is for a necessary being, not a specific God.

---

I think I agree with you on the resurrection except, you offer "whether that's spiritually or physically". If it were merely a spiritual resurrection, the Roman soldiers could have easily debunked that with their own eyewitness testimony. It would have been of great benefit to the Romans to do so.

---

I included that due to a minority of early Christians believing it was spiritual (the gnostics), but the vast majority of surviving texts definitely points towards the predominant belief being physical.

Probably can just agree to disagree on the Roman testimony portion, since that is similar to the argument of silence discussed earlier for the Martyrs. It's hard enough as it is to read ancient texts and understand the motives behind them. It's nearly impossible to understand motives on something not recorded.

---

The creed in 1Corinthians 15 dates to about 2-5 years after Jesus crucifixion. Do you give that much weight?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

But again, you are simply stating an opinion, not evidence.

That's the point.

---

Agreed - it is my opinion that I do not find the evidence compelling.

---

Do you assign any weight to the archaeological finds that match stories in the Bible such as Caiaphas Ossuary, Pilate Stone, Pool of Siloam, Mowbite Stone, Nabonidus Cylinder or any of a multitude of others?

Do you assign any weight to the fulfilled prophecy in the Bible ? Approximately 300 of which are Messianic predictions fulfilled by Christ?

Of all the arguments FOR Christianity, what do you believe is the strongest argument you e read/heard?

---

These are all great questions, so I'll try to answer them appropriately. On the archaeological finds, yes I do assign weight to those. They confirm the Bible contains genuine historical detail and that's meaningful. In my original post I mentioned that the Bible is a mix of history, theology, philosophy, and mythology, so I certainly believe historical people, locations, and events are present.

For the prophesies, we probably differ more here. Many of the prophecies are vague enough to be applied retroactively, written towards, and are heavily debated even between Christian denominations.

As for the strongest argument for Christianity, I think it's the historical case for the resurrection. Something clearly happened that caused at least some of the early disciples to believe Jesus rose from the dead, whether that's physically or spiritually. Since the gospels are anonymous though and came 30-70 years after the events, it's difficult to untangle what's fact and fiction.

I'll add a bonus regarding arguments for God: I think the most convincing argument is the Leibnizian Contingency Argument. There are a few others, but this one is the most difficult to counterargue. However I will mention this is for a necessary being, not a specific God.

---

I think I agree with you on the resurrection except, you offer "whether that's spiritually or physically". If it were merely a spiritual resurrection, the Roman soldiers could have easily debunked that with their own eyewitness testimony. It would have been of great benefit to the Romans to do so.

---

I included that due to a minority of early Christians believing it was spiritual (the gnostics), but the vast majority of surviving texts definitely points towards the predominant belief being physical.

Probably can just agree to disagree on the Roman testimony portion, since that is similar to the argument of silence discussed earlier for the Martyrs. It's hard enough as it is to read ancient texts and understand the motives behind them. It's nearly impossible to understand motives on something not recorded.

---

The creed in 1Corinthians 15 dates to about 2-5 years after Jesus crucifixion. Do you give that much weight?

---

Yes, for sure. And to steelman, the creed could be as soon as 0-1 years post event (but likely around 3-5 like you mentioned)

Oldbear83 said:

---

Answered in the post you quoted.

---

So you have no answer, just what I thought.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Not proof but, amazing evidence

---

He got part of it right. Many people had a hand in eventually compiling a written text. The part about not contradictions, and other statements are patently false and shows his ignorance.

---

Lib,

2 Corinthians 4:4

---

4:4 is contradictory to the whole Christian premiss of presenting a 'good news' message to convert the world.

---

From the start there have been deniers of the faith regardless of the evidence.

Pharaoh was on the receiving end of miraculous plagues

Christ sent apostles out and told them to shake the dust from their feet and to move on when coming across those that would not welcome their teaching.

Even the rich young ruler who put his riches before Christ, walked away.

Your view of 2 Corinthians 4:4 is simply wrong. It is not a contradiction but proof that "narrow is the gate". Did you not use your free will to walk away from your faith?

When did you move from being a septic to a cynic? It seems the passage applies, sadly.

---

You're relying on tales and stories by primitive people for which there in no objective empirical evidence. 4:4 is contradictory to the concept of a loving god. If that god is not all loving, all powerful, then it could be possible. The chief god of the OT mostly fits that description. The NT god really isn't much better.

Since I started objectively considering religions origin and the fact there is no objective empirical evidence to support supernatural phenomena. Group think religious training is not evidence.

Christianity is all over the place, so the gate isn't narrow, rather it's closed. You really don't believe all that nonsense either. I don't think I've ever met a professing Christian who actually practiced or followed the words of Christianity about what Jesus supposedly said. Or, even what Paul said in the six letters he wrote.

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I have yet to find sufficient evidence (scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, or otherwise) that convincingly demonstrates the validity of Christianity's core claims.

---

Thanks for the honest answer.

What things about the Bible and/or about Jesus do you believe if any?

---

I believe the Bible is a collection of ancient texts with history, mythology/allegory, and theology/philosophy all interwoven together.

As for Jesus, I think it's almost certain he was a real historical figure, he was a Jewish man from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered followers and taught, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and some of his followers believed he rose from the dead and continued spreading his message.

There's plenty more obviously, but hopeful that helps answer at a high level.

---

You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead.

Also, that despite some very vigorous efforts by Jewish and Roman authorities to suppress and wipe out the believers, the Church survived, thrived and in the end is still here long after its persecutors passed on.

Quite the historic anomaly.

---

We have very few early sources for the disciples' martyrdoms and none being contemporary.

Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. Acts records the execution of James son of Zebedee, though its dating is debated.

Most of what people think about how specific apostles died comes from Eusebius and apocryphal texts written centuries later.

---

Just as there is no contradictory record of the empty tomb, there is no contradictory record of the martyrdom of the apostles.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-do-we-know-that-the-apostles-really-died-as-martyrs/

---

Thank you for sharing the article. I read through it and its core argument is essentially: early Christian tradition says they died as martyrs, no ancient source contradicts it, therefore it's reliable. But that reasoning has a few problems - I'll try to respond to each of its three points made.

First, it leans on Acts as evidence the disciples were headed toward martyrdom. The issue is that Acts is a Christian document written by someone already committed to the faith (unlike some of the sources in my OP), so it's not an independent external source. Using it to validate claims made by that same belief system is circular.

Second, it argues the martyrdom tradition is uniform with no contradictory ancient record. But absence of contradiction isn't evidence something happened, that's an argument from silence. Given how little was documented about minor figures in a small 1st century sect, it's honestly just what you'd expect, regardless of what happened.

Third, it points to later Christians dying for their faith as corroboration of the original accounts. But those people were dying for their belief in the apostolic testimony, not because they had independent knowledge of what happened. This only tells us the tradition spread, not that it's true.

---

First, evidence includes Josephus documenting James' execution (AD 62), and writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp (late 1st/early 2nd century) confirming the violent deaths of Peter and Paul. This is not circular reasoning.

Second, Numerous non-biblical, early Christian, and secular writings from the late 1st to 2nd centuries mention the apostles, particularly Peter, Paul, and John. Key sources include the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias) and Roman historians like Tacitus, who corroborate the apostles' ministry, leadership, and martyrdom

They were more than minor figures in their time, especially for the Romans and Jews wanting to stop the growth of the church. Not only was there plenty of opportunity to write contradictory accounts, there was plenty of reason to write contradictory accounts and yet, there are none.

Third, that's true for anyone a generation or more after the contemporaries die. However, if there was evidence to the contrary that the apostles did not die as martyrs there is a strong likelihood that would have been presented to get the later Christians to recant.

---

Genuine question: did you read the post you originally responded to lol? I mentioned most of these sources already:
"Josephus mentions James around 30 years after his death, Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul a generation later, and Tacitus mentions Neronian persecution without naming specific disciples. …."

These are certainly better than acts, but are still not contemporary.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the missing contradictory accounts portion.

---

You want a dated Jerusalem Post article. 30 years is extremely close for a historical account during that timeframe. EXTREMELY CLOSE

---

My point was simply that we don't have any contemporary sources, with the vast majority coming a century or more later from Christian sources.

I think it's plausible, if not likely, that a handful of early Christians were martyrs, but I'm not convinced in the church tradition that most of the 12 were martyrs.

---

How many of the eyewitnesses need to be martyred to make a convincing argument, 2, 6, more?

J Warner Wallace, a cold case detective used the same analytical tools he uses for murder cases to looked at the death and resurrection of Christ. He describes the evidence as being "death by 1000 cuts"-so many small things all pointing the same direction. He says the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

His book, Cold Case Christianity, addresses many of the arguments made in this thread

---

As I stated earlier, I don't believe most of the 12 were martyred outside James, and maybe Peter. I'm only being more defensive as your original claim was:
"You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead."

I have read Cold Case Christianity actually, as well as about two dozen other apologetic books and counter apologetic books. Was not a fan of Wallace personally.

---

Quote:

---

"You left out an important detail - that the disciples of Jesus, all of them, were willing to suffer terrible punishment, even die, rather than retract their claim that Christ rose from the dead."

---

These are simply stories (written years later) written by people who have a theoligical reason to promote the idea of martyrdom. The fact is there is no contemporaneous objective independent sources confirming. Which begs the question, if there is an all knowing, powerful, supernatural god who wants to spread the "good news" message he charged fallible mere mortals with spreading, are there not much more convincing ways to reveal himself and achieve his goals. IF the goal is to convert nonbelievers, he's failing badly and isn't very smart about it. If anyone of them were truly martyrs, it doesn't validate the belief, but simply confirms they were extremely gullible. People die all the time for misplaced beliefs. Islam is full of martyrs looking for their 72 virgin goats.

At any point did you catch that Corinthians 4.4 is a little G,

do you know who the god of this world is?