Hi Giles Grey and Onager,
Just saw your post. Will address all of your questions in the next few days or less. I won't have time to effectively answer each one now. That said, let me start with [me=bold text, Giles Grey italics texts] question about my claims
"One example of evidence could be the way the apostles and 90% of the early Christians leaders were tortured to death is evidence. Why die for a lie? To what end?"
This line of reasoning is used by nearly all judeo-christian theologies in order to substantiate their faith. It utilises a logical fallacy known as the Argument from Ignorance.
The fallacious nature of this argument is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Muslims and Mormons can also employ the same false reasoning to uphold their competing theologies.
It is also incorrect to presume that the first century martyrs knowingly died for a lie. The fact that they died by such gruesome executions indicates the extent of their conviction in what they believed
GG,I am aware of the awful circumstances involving all forms of martyrdom. I am speaking of the differences that are unique to early christian martyrdom.
My post about the 1st apostles IS different because the apostles were the witnesses.They were NOT converts, who heard from someone else. They saw the RISEN LORD. They didn't hear about it from someone else ..So that means, if their story was not truthful, there would have been a crack. Too many witnesses for it NOT to be true. ANY other faith is based on what someone else had testified to. The Christian Church was started by the apostles and dozens if not hundreds others who were witness to the resurrected Jesus. Most eventually tortured to death., Why not recant if it were not true?
My Point?-It's true. Jesus did rise from the dead. My opinion, maybe not yours.
Onoger wrote Close companions of Jesus and close companions of Muhammad who both die as martyrs are only different if you start with the claim that Jesus was special. You're trying to prove that Jesus was special though, so you can't start with that.
Not saying that Jesus was different [but of course, I think HE was..lol]
I am saying that the apostles were different in so much as they [and dozens of others] were actual witnesses. They were not convinced because of someone else's words. They believed because THEY SAW.
You really don't see the diff?