12 Apostles / Evidence for Jesus Testimonies

>and we know that they (Christians) were accused of disloyalty because of their refusal to perform the token ritual acknowledging the divine status of the Emperor

“What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted.”

He said the stories about how they were martyred. The only one mentioned in Acts is James, the rest are all later traditions with questionable truth.

The followers died for the lies the leader made up.

We're saying the disciples did not make up a lie that they saw Jesus alive after he was crucified, and go to their deaths believing their own lie.

Jesus really did rise from the dead.

The fact that you did not witness it does not mean it did not happen. Other people did witness it, and wrote their accounts of it. The accounts are credible and consistent and harmonious, and their beliefs changed the world.

Is any historical record reliable? Or do only the things that happened since you were born matter?

I meant the stories of their death.

For instance, I think the first account of Peters death is in Acts of Peter (c. 150- 200 CE), which is at least a 100 after his death. While for Philip it is only in Acts of Philip (350 – 400 CE) do we learn about his supposed martyrdom, which is more than 300 years after his death.

And how long after the fact is the first account of the death of Julius Caesar?

>He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.

45AD, James is martyred
c.60AD, Acts is written/published

All of the other Apostles died after this date, except Phillip. Philip is mentioned in Acts, so the date of death (c.54AD) is unlikely, which is why the link in OP gives it a "grade c" for accuracy. You have to look outside of the Bible for these things.

>Someone died for what they believed in
>This mean something that is literally impossible happened
kek. What retarded logic.

You're welcome to question any historical record regardless of era if you think it's based on shaky grounds.
A lot of biblical accounts are pretty shaky and contradict each other.

>pretty shaky
Did you get that out of a textbook?

Acts was written ten years prior to that. Stephen, the first martyr, was murdered in 36 AD, and that account is in the Acts of the Apostles.

So all history is out.

And you think the bible contains contradictions.

The funny thing is you think you are a neutral and reasonable human being, and not in open rebellion against God at all.

It'd probably be a fair bit more consistent than half the gospels friendo ;^)

>So all history is out.

Out? What the fuck are you on about?

It's not OUT, it's open for debate and liable to be questioned for its veracity.

A lot of non-biblical material is valid, passed down through generations, however I do understand that the space of the dates does bring some questions.

The best evidence we have of Peter's martyrdom is in the New Testament:

>Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

Though mysterious, with Neronian persecution in 64AD, we can conclude that the Apostles were persecuted for being Early Christians

It's all bunk. Unreliable. Unprovable. Gone. Only you matter.

No, they believed that their Messiah would indeed return as he promised instead of dying the way everyone does when they are crucified, and died in loyalty to him, still waiting. The bit about him having resurrected and then immediately vanishing was a half-truth or a fabrication but they genuinely still believed in Jesus's return. Great religious disappointments often increase religiosity.

So acts is written in 50?

Whatever you say, buddy.

So you have absolutely no idea what started Christianity.

Jesus rose from the dead.

He spent 40 days with his disciples, and then ascended into heaven.

The Gospels are very consistent. Do you care to show to "inconsistencies" ?

Luke 1 (Luke wrote Acts)

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Luke was in on the ground floor, and writing in the 30's.

I'm not your buddy, pal.

>The followers died for the lies the leader made up.

He killed himself too, idiot.

Jesus died too.

The analogy is not about the leaders. It's about the followers.

Neither HG nor the disciples made up lies about their leader after the leader's death.

You really need to work on your analogies.

Not even him, but each Gospel gives a different account of what Jesus's supposed last words on the cross were. The closest are Mark and Matthew, but even they claim it was in a different language.

Are you honestly fucking retarded? You said people don't die for their own lies, half-truths, or fabrications. He and all of his followers died. Does that mean what he claimed was true?

It makes you wonder who has the true Bible scripts and dates, because the internet varies the dates of the Gospels

No, you're talking to a false flagging fedora type troll posing as a retarded fundie protestant. This guy has been around for a long, long time.

jesuschristsavior.net/Words.html

>Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do (Lk)
>Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do (Lk)
>Jesus said to his mother: "Woman, this is your son." Then he said to the disciple: "This is your mother." (Jn)
>"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mt)
>"I thirst." (Jn)
>"It is finished;" (Jn)
>"Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." (Lk)

They are all very consistent, and show He said plenty of things while upon the cross.

Please show more of the "inconsistencies" because it is to understanding that Jesus said many things upon the cross.

>"Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."

Poe's law very much applies here. you'd be surprised the kind of nonsense that comes out of these people's mouths.

No, they don't. Jesus said 7 things on the cross, some say some of them, and only 1 says the very last thing was X before he died.

Jesus died after saying all 7 things, and only one claimed to be the very last thing he said.

>Caesar

Well, Cicero mentions it in his letters, about 8-9 months after it happened.

They were tortured and executed without recanting one single word.

Nobody does that for a lie they themselves made up.

I think you need some Rosetta Stone English tapes.

>The fact that you did not witness it does not mean it did not happen. Other people did witness it, and wrote their accounts of it. The accounts are credible and consistent and harmonious, and their beliefs changed the world.

In the bible.

If Ceasar was the Messiah, people would claim Cicero's letters to be forgeries.

Nobody knows for sure. The old rule of thumb was that the destruction of the Temple by Rome in 70 AD was so huge and so traumatic and so noteworthy that none of the gospels could have been written after 70 AD without mentioning it.

The early dating, the earliest known manuscripts, etc., are always in flux. The early dating of the gospels is steadily pushing them back into the early 40's.

And Paul and Luke and James are also being pushed back into the 30's and 40's.

wew lad. even if you combine the accounts that still makes them imperfect. imagine if i had to read four different plays in order to get the entire final monologue of the main character

...

Thanks for the info

I asked how old the most recent copy of Cicero's letter was.

Vat. Lat. 5757Offsite Link, a fourth century palimpsest of Cicero's De re publicaOffsite Link (De res publica, De republica) preserved in the Vatican Library represents the largest part of the surviving text of this text. It was palimpsested in the seventh or eighth century with a commentary of St. Augustine on the psalms. The palimpsest was formerly in the library of Bobbio Abbey.

That's over a thousand years later dude.

Four authors. Four audiences. Four faces of Jesus. Four different intents.

not that user but
>even if you combine the accounts that still makes them imperfect
the 4 gospels line up with each other

> imagine if i had to read four different plays in order to get the entire final monologue of the main character
maybe you should read at least one of them

4 authors
one audience
one intent
one Jesus

Matthew, the tax collector. Wrote in Hebrew to the Hebrews to show the Hebrews Jesus as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the King of the Jews

Mark, who wrote Peter's account, to the Romans, to show Jesus as the Ox, the Suffering Servant.

Luke, who compiled the records for the Greeks, in Greek, showing Jesus as the Son of Man.

John, who wrote to the world to show Jesus as the Son of God, the Eagle.

why exactly would each author not write some of what Jesus said? some events being excluded from this gospel or that makes sense but this is one scene, each author only having scattered bits of what Jesus said. would memory be such a problem if they were writing under the influence of the holy spirit? how do we know there aren't additional things Jesus said on the cross that none of them wrote down?

*write all

Why didn't Joseph Smith just admit he was lying instead of letting the situation get so out of hand that a mob murdered him?

>I asked how old the most recent copy of Cicero's letter was.

No you didn't. You asked when the first mention of Caesar's death was.

If you go by the oldest extant copies, then none of the Gospels exist before 200. You can't have it both ways, jackass.

I'll give you an example.

Peter wrote of Jesus as the suffering servant; no genealogy because nobody cares where a servant comes from, or where he goes.

Matthew gave a genealogy through Joseph, showing that Jesus is a descendant of David and heir to the throne.

Luke gives a genealogy all the way back to Adam, showing Jesus as the Son of Man.

John gives no genealogy, as The Son of God is God.

>And how long after the fact is the first account of the death of Julius Caesar?

Any more lies?

If you were in that mob, would you be listening to him at that point?

There are plenty of thing Jesus taught not recorded in the Bible.

I do understand, having general skepticism "why is the Bible's New Testament written so weird" and "why are we only getting pieces of teachings?"

The Testaments in their original tongue make more sense literally and "poetically", in English, meh, but still very important, though in their original languages are more versed, scripted, and beautiful.

Also, there is only 3 years of ministry in the NT. Imagine if someone recorded every teaching Jesus taught, every word, every message, every day. We would have so much knowledge about Him. However, that would be like us, trying to record an auto-biography or a biography of someone else. We would miss many, many, many, details.

Lastly, (now this is just a minor statement and idea), is that maybe Jesus wanted His life to be a mystery. Maybe He wanted us to read the parables and hidden messages for our selves. Maybe, we only have so little about Him, so we can find out much more on our own. I know that might sound unsatisfying to most people, but truly it is worth the adventure, because we learn how to commune with God guiding us in Spirit, rather than copy and paste superficial interpretations.

But people don't die for their own lies. And his last words were recorded. So the fact that he didn't recount means he was telling the truth about his religion.

Do you think the Romans executing the apostles would have listened to them at that point?

>What makes you think he was lying?
I guess maybe he wasn't. As stated in , people do not die for their own lies, half-truths, or fabrications. And he died as a direct result of his religious actions angering people.

Thus, Mormonism must be true, because people do not die for their own lies.

>First account

Yes, that is what the first account is that I know of.

First account != Oldest surviving copy you dimwit.

>And you think the bible contains contraditions
It does
>The funny thing is you think you are a neutral and reasonable human being
He seems to be
>And not open rebellion against god
Kek.
Christcucks are funny when they think anyone gives a shit about their bullshit.