Historical fact of the martyrdom of apostles as proof of Christianity

Do any of the gospel writer confirm this? Do any of them for instance tell us that with the destruction of the temple that this was the end of time or the end of old covenant? 

  Mark 12 Matthew 24 Luke 21

Nope. Nothing there at all that mentions the "ending of a covenant with Israel or  the abolition of sacrifices" that accompany the temples destruction.. As you have claimed and that I can see.  Could you point it out for me?

This accomplished historically what had happened spiritually in Jesus' death on the cross. 

Do you have any biblical evidence to support that, or is this just your own opinion? It appears that Christians have quite a few opinions on why Jesus died on the cross and none are to do with ushering in  "old last days" or new ones.

I never said it was to usher in the last days.  

But don't you agree that the destruction of the Temple was the catalyst to the "end of days"?   Yes or No?

This last one however will not be ushered in until the church has historically grown up and become an adult - mature and spotless in every way. 

And the bible confirms this does it? Or is this just your own opinion? And  what do you mean by "spotless"? 

Yes. The bible confirms it.  You can go and look up the verse or don't you know it? 

 I don't know it. So it will be nice for me to read for myself once you have posted it up.  What do you mean when you say "spotless" and" mature"

Given that the church is very much an adolescent. One which is having trouble understanding its identity, it is very unlikely it has occurred. 

Which church?

The church - invisible for want of a better word. 

What do you consider this "invisible churches understanding and identity" actually to be?

For the record, I don't think the Last Day of the world - when Jesus returns to judge the world - is the end of the world.

Neither do I. Jesus/bible only mentions the "end of the age"  which in my own opinion is clearly a term used often in astronomy of which the bible and Jesus makes many references to.

Age  / world often used synonomously. Eaon v kosmos.

 

Do you have a a biblical  example?

The imagery we have in Revelation - brings down that division - so that the city of Heaven - will be on earth.

You do know that none of the things that were expected of Jesus as messiah never came to fruition don't you? Not one.

Well - I obviously have a different position. How about you start by telling me what things were expected of Jesus that you say never came to fruition? 

Just to name a few. Jesus;

failed  to inherit the throne of David as was promised to his mother.

failed to become king of the Jews.

failed to free the Jews from the Roman yoke.

failed rebuild the Temple.

This wouldn't make him a Messiah, although some of his close disciples believed him to be.

Jesus has not yet returned in his fully glory to collect his bride.  

 I agree. Jesus hasn't returned in my time. But then the bible does mention that Jesus was  physically "resurrected" from being a three day old corpse as a man 2000 years ago and in his own body:

Well actually the bible is very clear that Jesus was physically resurrected. 

Indeed and  as I have already mentioned, Jesus is alleged to have been "resurrected from the dead" as a flesh and blood human man too. 

Jesus  appearing to his  some of his followers said- " Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

Where does it say that? 

In the Bible.

And Paul says - "I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable".

So? 

 So you don't understand that verse then?  Paul is denying that Jesus resurrected from being of flesh and blood and physically dead  to being alive and living flesh and blood physically . If he had been he "cannot inherit the kingdom of God". 

So with this in mind and your own opinion that the "last days" started with the destruction of the temple isn't it more likely that your lord Jesus has indeed been and gone and you have missed the bus?

Jesus has not returned yet.  Nothing you have said - would indicate anything else.  Perhaps you should fill in the gaps that you seem to see - but no one else does. 

I don't need to fill in any gaps, but you need to fill in the gap of some 2000+ years and the promise to return. I am of the opinion that you missed your heavenly ride to paradise. But it is only my opinion.

Do you have any biblical evidence to support that, or is this just your own opinion? It appears that Christians have quite a few opinions on why Jesus died on the cross and none are to do with ushering in  "old last days" or new ones.

I never said it was to usher in the last days.  

So the death of Christ the messiah on the cross and the destruction of the Temple were not the beginning  of the ushering in of the end times?

Do any of the gospel writer confirm this? Do any of them for instance tell us that with the destruction of the temple that this was the end of time or the end of old covenant? 

  Mark 12 Matthew 24 Luke 21

Nope. Nothing there at all that mentions the "ending of a covenant with Israel or  the abolition of sacrifices" that accompany the temples destruction.. As you have claimed and that I can see.  Could you point it out for me?

yes I could but since you are this really fantastic bible scholar, I would not want to embarrass you. 

This last one however will not be ushered in until the church has historically grown up and become an adult - mature and spotless in every way. 

And the bible confirms this does it? Or is this just your own opinion? And  what do you mean by "spotless"? 

Yes. The bible confirms it.  You can go and look up the verse or don't you know it? 

 I don't know it. So it will be nice for me to read for myself once you have posted it up.  What do you mean when you say "spotless" and" mature"

I would refer you to a verse in the NT by the apostle Paul - but given you are such a fantastic bible scholar I don't want to embarrass you. Spotless and mature - or without wrinkle. I mean grown up. 

Given that the church is very much an adolescent. One which is having trouble understanding its identity, it is very unlikely it has occurred. 

Which church?

The church - invisible for want of a better word. 

What do you consider this "invisible churches understanding and identity" actually to be?

the point of an invisible church is to remove identity except generally. 

For the record, I don't think the Last Day of the world - when Jesus returns to judge the world - is the end of the world.

Neither do I. Jesus/bible only mentions the "end of the age"  which in my own opinion is clearly a term used often in astronomy of which the bible and Jesus makes many references to.

Age  / world often used synonomously. Eaon v kosmos.

 

Do you have a a biblical  example?

Yes.  Don't you? 

The imagery we have in Revelation - brings down that division - so that the city of Heaven - will be on earth.

You do know that none of the things that were expected of Jesus as messiah never came to fruition don't you? Not one.

Well - I obviously have a different position. How about you start by telling me what things were expected of Jesus that you say never came to fruition? 

Just to name a few. Jesus;

failed  to inherit the throne of David as was promised to his mother.

failed to become king of the Jews.

failed to free the Jews from the Roman yoke.

failed rebuild the Temple.

This wouldn't make him a Messiah, although some of his close disciples believed him to be.

I guess you are reading a different NT to me then.  I know you have an aversion to the book of Hebrews. 

Jesus has not yet returned in his fully glory to collect his bride.  

 I agree. Jesus hasn't returned in my time. But then the bible does mention that Jesus was  physically "resurrected" from being a three day old corpse as a man 2000 years ago and in his own body:

Well actually the bible is very clear that Jesus was physically resurrected. 

Indeed and  as I have already mentioned, Jesus is alleged to have been "resurrected from the dead" as a flesh and blood human man too. 

Well yes Jesus was resurrected flesh and blood. 

Jesus  appearing to his  some of his followers said- " Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

Where does it say that? 

In the Bible.

Where specifically? 

And Paul says - "I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable".

So? 

 So you don't understand that verse then?  Paul is denying that Jesus resurrected from being of flesh and blood and physically dead  to being alive and living flesh and blood physically . If he had been he "cannot inherit the kingdom of God". 

Oh I am pretty sure I understand it as much as the next person.  Paul is doing no such thing.  You just need to read a little wider. 

Do you have any biblical evidence to support that, or is this just your own opinion? It appears that Christians have quite a few opinions on why Jesus died on the cross and none are to do with ushering in  "old last days" or new ones.

I never said it was to usher in the last days.  

So the death of Christ the messiah on the cross and the destruction of the Temple were not the beginning  of the ushering in of the end times?

nope.  

I have never claimed to be scholarly. That will be your forte, you never seem to tire of telling us about your own exceptional theological education under all of those biblical and ancient language scholars. Would you like reminding?

  So are you going to point out for us where in those verses that you have offered up show where they speak of the "ending of a covenant with Israel or  the abolition of sacrifices" that accompany the temples destruction?  

I would refer you to a verse in the NT by the apostle Paul - but given you are such a fantastic bible scholar I don't want to embarrass you. Spotless and mature - or without wrinkle. I mean grown up. 

But this doesn't explain "spotless". ie absolutely clean or pure; immaculate without fault or blemish.

the point of an invisible church is to remove identity except generally. 

That is making no sense to me. Could you expand?

Yes.  Don't you? 

Sorry, I don't , that is why I asked you.  So will you be offering up any examples?

I guess you are reading a different NT to me then.  I know you have an aversion to the book of Hebrews. 

Not at all.  If you disagree simply show us where Jesus fulfilled all that was expected of his role as the expected Messiah. It shouldn't be difficult seeing that you are adamant that he did all that was expected of a Messiah.

Jesus  appearing to his  some of his followers said- " Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

Where does it say that? 

In the Bible.

Where specifically? 

Please. Don't tell me that you amazing memory of the bible has let you down again.  Are you trying to tell us that you cannot remember one of the most famous stories surrounding the events of resurrection?

And Paul says - "I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable".

So? 

 So you don't understand that verse then?  Paul is denying that Jesus resurrected from being of flesh and blood and physically dead  to being alive and living flesh and blood physically . If he had been he "cannot inherit the kingdom of God". 

Oh I am pretty sure I understand it as much as the next person.  Paul is doing no such thing.  You just need to read a little wider. 

You obviously do not. Paul is more than clear saying that;  stinking perishable rotting three day old flesh cannot return to its previous condition.

This accomplished historically what had happened spiritually in Jesus' death on the cross. 

Do you have any biblical evidence to support that, or is this just your own opinion? It appears that Christians have quite a few opinions on why Jesus died on the cross and none are to do with ushering in  "old last days" or new ones.

The last days of the world however is another occasion - the one which is also often mentioned. 

 " the last days of the world"? And where or who by is it mentioned?

So the death of Christ the messiah on the cross and the destruction of the Temple were not the beginning  of the ushering in of the end times?

nope.  

So the destruction of the temple and the death of the Christ didn't signify anything at all then? 

  So are you going to point out for us where in those verses that you have offered up show where they speak of the "ending of a covenant with Israel or  the abolition of sacrifices" that accompany the temples destruction?  

No. 

I would refer you to a verse in the NT by the apostle Paul - but given you are such a fantastic bible scholar I don't want to embarrass you. Spotless and mature - or without wrinkle. I mean grown up. 

But this doesn't explain "spotless". ie absolutely clean or pure; immaculate without fault or blemish.

Are you sure? 

the point of an invisible church is to remove identity except generally. 

That is making no sense to me. Could you expand?

Sure, but what would be the point? You don't really care anyway.  

Yes.  Don't you? 

Sorry, I don't , that is why I asked you.  So will you be offering up any examples?

No. 

I guess you are reading a different NT to me then.  I know you have an aversion to the book of Hebrews. 

Not at all.  If you disagree simply show us where Jesus fulfilled all that was expected of his role as the expected Messiah. It shouldn't be difficult seeing that you are adamant that he did all that was expected of a Messiah.

Seriously.  Just go to a Christian bookshop. Most towns have them these days.  Try asking for some help.   It should be too difficult for you to do this - if you are genuinely interested.   

Jesus  appearing to his  some of his followers said- " Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

Where does it say that? 

In the Bible.

Where specifically? 

Please. Don't tell me that you amazing memory of the bible has let you down again.  Are you trying to tell us that you cannot remember one of the most famous stories surrounding the events of resurrection?

LOL! in other words, the verse you claim to be quoting does not exist in the manner in which you alleged.  Surprise surprise. But thanks for the concession. 

And Paul says - "I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable".

So? 

 So you don't understand that verse then?  Paul is denying that Jesus resurrected from being of flesh and blood and physically dead  to being alive and living flesh and blood physically . If he had been he "cannot inherit the kingdom of God". 

Oh I am pretty sure I understand it as much as the next person.  Paul is doing no such thing.  You just need to read a little wider. 

You obviously do not. Paul is more than clear saying that;  stinking perishable rotting three day old flesh cannot return to its previous condition.

Wrong. Well mostly.  such things cannot return to its original condition - unless something happens.  It is always the something else that you tend to miss.  

This accomplished historically what had happened spiritually in Jesus' death on the cross. 

Do you have any biblical evidence to support that, or is this just your own opinion? It appears that Christians have quite a few opinions on why Jesus died on the cross and none are to do with ushering in  "old last days" or new ones.

Your the one telling the story.  

The last days of the world however is another occasion - the one which is also often mentioned. 

 " the last days of the world"? And where or who by is it mentioned?

Go down to the local street corner.  I am sure you will find someone with a poster saying the "the end is nigh". Or perhaps you turn on netflix - there is likely to be some show there discussing the end of the world. 

So the death of Christ the messiah on the cross and the destruction of the Temple were not the beginning  of the ushering in of the end times?

nope.  

So the destruction of the temple and the death of the Christ didn't signify anything at all then? 

I love how when I don't answer in the way you want that you immediately jump to the opposite position. 

His death was not signifying the end of times. 

It surely had a lot of things to signify though.  

@Tradesecret:

Remember I told you that this forum is sick and tired of your Bible STUPIDITY?!  Remember?  Then you display your complete stupidity upon the Bible AGAIN  where you  embarrassingly said to Stephen: "Where does it say that" regarding the Jesus passage relating to "Look at my hands and my feet ...." in your limp pseudo-christian post #88!  

OUR SERIAL KILLER JESUS SAID: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” (Luke 24:39)

Miss Tradesecret is an embarrassment to Christianity and to Jesus as He looks down upon this 2nd class Sister of Eve! (Hebrews 4:13)

Tradesecret wrote: I am not sure if you read the story or not? 

Stephen wrote:  I have serious doubts whether you have ever read the whole  scriptures for yourself, or questioned them for yourself, Reverend Chaplin Tradesecrete? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5194-i-have-two-virgin-daughters?page=1&post_number=8

Tradsecret wrote: I can't seem to recall where Lot was ever held up as a paragon of virtue or righteousness.  

Can you think of anywhere in the Scriptures where Lot is help up as being a model for Jews or for Christians? I can't and I would never hold him up as so.  

Stephen wrote: 2 Peter 2:7

"and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless" . https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5194-i-have-two-virgin-daughters?page=1&post_number=8

Can I ask what sources you'd suggest as being reliable for genuine research. As for the simplest solution being the most likely. I agree up to a point, but where does that end? At what point do we consider if the 'simplest solution matches what we know to be possible? What should lead us to conclude a dead man being ressurected is the most plausible explanation?

If we are to research what happened to Jesus, then the sources which would be most reliable would be the manuscripts which are closest or oldest to his alleged existence. [...........]  Interestingly there are copious amounts of manuscripts for the alleged existence of Jesus.  Not just close in times of date but also multiple copies of similar documents.  For those interested in ancient documents - the narratives around the life of Jesus are quite extraordinary.  

Those would be the primary documents. 

  Besides, unfortunately Jesus was a "Demigod" being born from His human mother Mary which makes Him being a "minor God" concept, resurrected or not!. 

Great question.  If we are to research what happened to Jesus, then the sources which would be most reliable would be the manuscripts which are closest or oldest to his alleged existence.  If we were to research the works of Aristotle or Caesar, we would do the same thing.  Interestingly there are copious amounts of manuscripts for the alleged existence of Jesus.  Not just close in times of date but also multiple copies of similar documents.  For those interested in ancient documents - the narratives around the life of Jesus are quite extraordinary. 

I take the view that when it comes to understanding the resurrection of Jesus - that the biggest hurdle people have is God not facts.  If you don't believe in God, then the resurrection becomes an impossibility, no matter what the facts ought to lead us to conclude.

In other words, facts become a side issue - to what we "know with our own experience". This is where many atheists tend to fall down.

You can't beat something with nothing. In other words, historians of all positions accept something extraordinary happened in history that took a new Jewish cult in the backwaters of the world from almost next to nothing with few subscribers to a cult that within a couple of hundred years - had captured a very large proportion of the Roman empire. This occurred in a time while Christianity was still illegal and participants could very much expect to be sentenced to death. The question is what happened? 

When all of the varied theories put forward to the questions around the death and resurrection are considered - and weighted against plausibility. Against likelihood. Against possibilities, the preponderance of evidence is significant. I think overwhelming. For me - the resurrection of Jesus is not something I believe in faith. In fact I would counsel against Christians to believe such in faith. It is a historical fact for the church. 

Hence the answer to your last questions is FACTS should have us arrive at that conclusion.  We ought not let the bias and assumptions we have either in the belief or the disbelief of God come into it. 

For there not to be a resurrection, requires a better, more plausible explanation. At this point in time, that still remains remarkably missing. Many people account for some part of the question - but NOT one takes into the account the entirety of the story.  Where is the body? Why were there so many actual witnesses of the resurrection - who were prepared to die - if they knew it was a lie or a conspiracy? What caused the exponential growth of the church - that has so baffled historians? 

If we are to research what happened to Jesus, then the sources which would be most reliable would be the manuscripts which are closest or oldest to his alleged existence. [...........]  Interestingly there are copious amounts of manuscripts for the alleged existence of Jesus.  Not just close in times of date but also multiple copies of similar documents.  For those interested in ancient documents - the narratives around the life of Jesus are quite extraordinary.  

Those would be the primary documents. 

Are you suggesting that the bible on its own is not good enough proof of the resurrection?

If we are to research what happened to Jesus, then the sources which would be most reliable would be the manuscripts which are closest or oldest to his alleged existence. [...........]  Interestingly there are copious amounts of manuscripts for the alleged existence of Jesus.  Not just close in times of date but also multiple copies of similar documents.  For those interested in ancient documents - the narratives around the life of Jesus are quite extraordinary.  

Those would be the primary documents. 

Are you suggesting that the bible on its own is not good enough proof of the resurrection?

So just to be clear? Are you asking me a personal question or an objective theological question? 

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/biola-magazine/2013/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs-for-their-f

Info on the martyrdom of the apostles as historical fact

What do skeptics think of this argument?