(August 19, 2014 at 2:44 am)oukoida Wrote: a group organized fraud

But they died as martyrs.

(August 19, 2014 at 2:51 am)revivin Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 2:44 am)oukoida Wrote: a group organized fraud

But they died as martyrs.

... Goes the claim that we also can't confirm.

Besides, if dying in martyrdom is so impressive to you, I guess you're a muslim, right? Every religion has martyrs, you know.

(August 19, 2014 at 2:51 am)revivin Wrote: But they died as martyrs.

Always for a good cause...

(August 19, 2014 at 2:56 am)Esquilax Wrote: can't confirm.

Besides, if dying in martyrdom is so impressive to you, I guess you're a muslim, right?

The early church fathers record the martyrdom of the Apostles. Paul was almost killed 7 times before he was martyred Clement of Rome said. James was the first to be martyred in Acts. I see all this martyrdom it's difficult not to accept it is martyrdom. Counter claims need evidence.

Just like Muslims the Apostles believed in their faith, but the difference is the Apostles believed in what they saw, not just a belief.

(August 19, 2014 at 2:59 am)revivin Wrote: The early church fathers record the martyrdom of the Apostles. Paul was almost killed 7 times before he was martyred Clement of Rome said. James was the first to be martyred in Acts. I see all this martyrdom it's difficult not to accept it is martyrdom. Counter claims need evidence.

No, claims need evidence, and you can't support a claim with another part of the claim. Saying "the early church fathers record that..." is no more convincing than saying that propaganda is always curiously positive about its subject.

Quote:Just like Muslims the Apostles believed in their faith, but the difference is the Apostles believed in what they saw, not just a belief.

How do you know they saw anything at all?

(August 19, 2014 at 3:03 am)Esquilax Wrote: How do you know they saw anything at all?

I see these multiple points of testimony very well corroborated they were martyred and nothing to suggest otherwise so that's why I believe they were martyred. Claiming otherwise needs evidence.

And the reason why I believe they saw Jesus alive from the dead is because Paul wrote he spent 15 days with Peter, with John and James the brother of Jesus. They all had the same gospel message of resurrection and as eyewitnesses.

(August 19, 2014 at 3:08 am)revivin Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 3:03 am)Esquilax Wrote: How do you know they saw anything at all?

I see these multiple points of testimony very well corroborated they were martyred and nothing to suggest otherwise so that's why I believe they were martyred. Claiming otherwise needs evidence.

And the reason why I believe they saw Jesus alive from the dead is because Paul wrote he spent 15 days with Peter, with John and James the brother of Jesus. They all had the same gospel message of resurrection and as eyewitnesses.

So Paul spent some time with three people who aren't Jesus, therefore they all saw Jesus get resurrected? I don't buy it.

(August 19, 2014 at 3:08 am)revivin Wrote: I see these multiple points of testimony very well corroborated they were martyred and nothing to suggest otherwise so that's why I believe they were martyred. Claiming otherwise needs evidence.

So you have a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that all agree with each other, from people with a vested interest in that being so... and a shifting of the burden of proof. Gotcha.

Quote:And the reason why I believe they saw Jesus alive from the dead is because Paul wrote he spent 15 days with Peter, with John and James the brother of Jesus. They all had the same gospel message of resurrection and as eyewitnesses.

Paul never met Jesus. So this is just a "friend of a friend..." claim, again from people with something to gain from propagating the claim. I can get accounts of that caliber from people who say they've been abducted by aliens, are you convinced by that? You can at least meet the abductees today, after all.

And if you're not convinced, how does a story that's a second hand account, that's unverifiable, and with worse evidence backing it up, somehow become more plausible?

(August 19, 2014 at 3:13 am)Esquilax Wrote: all agree with each other

I am not sure how the evidence could be better than this multiple corroboration and as groups. Do you have any ideas?

(August 19, 2014 at 3:14 am)revivin Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 3:13 am)Esquilax Wrote: all agree with each other

I am not sure how the evidence could be better than this multiple corroboration and as groups. Do you have any ideas?

Can you actually state in a logical sense what you are trying to prove and what your proof is? As far as I can tell, you've just extrapolated horribly from something Tacitus may have written, or may be a forgery.