denote Hierapolis because John Mark had the audacity to die before Peter. So, any biographer in the fedora-tippers' (Which include a lot of idiotic "scholars") mind are irrelevant if they died before the subject they wrote about.
Posted on 03/19/2020 8:05:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You could have googled that; but I suspect it's a rhetorical Q. In other religions? Yes. In defense of the veracity and reality of comic book superheroes, though? I'd have to say no. In view of that, I continue to assert that the atheist's use of the spiderman analogy is spurious and of no value.
Which Gospels make that claim?
Luke notes he had interviewed eyewitnesses for his Gospel.
He says the accounts were delivered by those who were eyewitness. It doesn’t say he spoke directly to them or why he believed they were witnesses. The originators of the story are not identified. It also doesn’t say how the stories were delivered. Maybe they were a collection of older writings. Maybe it was oral tradition.
Then you concede that the "But people died for their belief!"-argument is invalid and/or not compelling?
Regards,
People have died for their countries, their buddies in foxholes, their mob bosses, their families, their homes, their possessions, their tribes, their honor. None of those causes contain the promise of eternal life.
And yes, people have died defending their various religious beliefs, most often going down fighting. Muslims seem to believe that to be the ONLY guarantee of paradise. I have reason to doubt there is any salvation whatsoever in islam. It seems much more like a cultural/political/criminal/military enterprise to me.
Christians who are martyred rather than renounce their Savior, Jesus Christ, God incarnate, usually do so in the belief that their absence from the body will be presence with the Lord. They do so in emulation of Him, who suffered, bled and died for their sins, who rose from the dead, and who holds their eternal destinies in His hands. To me, these are valid and compelling. To you they are not. To be a believer in Christ, to be born of the spirit, one has to be impressed with Him, and desperate for Him. All others either ignore Him or write and speak against Him and His followers.
You can (possibly) make other cogent, compelling, and/or logically coherent arguments for your faith, but that one particular argument ("The martyrs chose death rather than deny their Saviour!" or "They believed in the promise of eternal life!") simply does not meet any of the criteria.
To put it simply: The reason someone chooses death may be an indication of the strength of their belief in something (incl. a whole belief system like religion), but it does not prove the truth of that belief.
Regards,
Poison Pill: Which Gospels make that claim?
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life.
2 And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.
3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.
20 For we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.
---------------------------------
Many more examples.
I have 4-5 local tv stations near me. They all report the 'news' at 6PM If they all told the same stories; why wouldn't we just have ONE of them?
Then what can be?
“Do you believe Hannibal existed?”
Yes. But I question his legend as it is told.
lol...History is written by the winners.
+.
His work isn't extant, so how do you know what he wrote?
BTW, that’s a trilby, not a fedora.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.