Yes, John was exiled to Patmos at one point, but he is the only one of the 11 that did not die a martyr, according to tradition.
Per Google:
Peter: crucified upside down in Rome in the 60s AD
Andrew: crucified on an X-shaped cross in Patras
James the Greater: executed by King Herod
Philip: crucified upside-down in Hierapolis
Bartholomew: flayed and beheaded in Armenia due to public outrage over his converting the Armenian king (Polymius) to Christianity
Thomas: martyred in India
Matthew: executed by sword, location disputed
James the Less: possibly killed by Jews in Egypt
Simon: conflicting traditions
Jude Thaddeus: possibly clubbed to death
Your “facts”(He died, he rose) is only an assumption unless it is based on other facts-Your personal belief in the statement doesn’t make it fact. There are several definitions of the term “Begging The Question” but the boil down to this:Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself. Every time you declare that it doesn’t matter whether the accounts match up because the “fact” that he died then he rose still stands, you are Begging The Question.
I understand the fallacy. I don’t expect you to concede to my presuppositions regarding the resurrection.
However, you seem to be repeatedly making the argument that the seemingly conflicting details in the accounts somehow makes the alleged event of the resurrection less credible. I don’t believe this is a valid argument for multiple reasons.
I don’t think there’s anything I haven’t stated already, but
The Church was already in existence celebrating mass and teaching the essential truths of the Gospel for over 30 years before the first Gospel account was written. Paul was already writing letters to the various Churches elaborating on the teachings of Jesus before the first Gospel account was written. The resurrection was clearly an integral part of Christian theology.
There are 4 different Gospel authors. Each author chose to emphasize certain things about the life and person of Jesus. When you emphasize certain things, other things inevitable get de-emphasized. Each author most likely used different sources for their material, so that’s where the minor discrepancies in detail probably come from.
Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and have from the very beginning. The assertion (from another poster) that the Apostles may not have even known about a resurrection is absurd and unfounded.
And about as unfounded as your claim that Christians believed in the resurrection from the very beginning. You have built a house of cards, with sand as your foundation.
The only source for your claim #1 is Catholic teaching itself - see ‘circular reasoning’ - other cults (Jehovah’s Witneeses, for one) make a similar claim that ‘their’ cult was in existence since the beginning and are therefore the correct one - they deny the Divinity of Christ (he was just a man) and the Trinity as pagan teachings of ‘Christendom’.
Google isn’t a source-Google is a search engine without a filter for what is legit and what is absolute crap.
Per Google:
Kennedy was assassinated by Johnson
The Earth is hollow and is the source of all UFO reports
Pyramids were built using geysers
Obama is a Communist atheist
Elvis is still alive
The world has ended 23 times since 1999
I was the worst moderator there ever was on the internet(o.k.-that one may be true)
I have made it abundantly clear which one I believe to be correct. Are you asking me to debunk the JW religion? Would it mean anything to you if I did?
What does this even mean? You claim that Google is your source of information, but you can’t name the sites you found to support your point of view using Google?
I can use Google to search, but then I am unable to follow most of the links that come up. Links came up from various sites, Wikipedia, different digital encyclopedias, as well as Church-related sites (Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic). Unfortunately, I am not able to follow the links to get the full write-up, I can only see the section of text or summary that comes up.
I’m not asking you to debuk the JW (or any cult’s beliefs) - I am asking you for actual evidence that supports your claim that the Catholic religion was the one formed ‘before the gospel was written’.
SO far - you only have Catholic dogma to back that up - and the example of the JW (and other cults) is that they make the ‘same’ claim - with the same lack of evidence and same level of honest belief.
Given that - hwo would I determine which of those claims is more valid than the other?
Why do you give such reverence to the Catholic claim above these others?
So the only reason you think that those little pop-ups are reliable is because they tell you what you already believe? This can only lead others to question any other statements of “fact” you may assert.
There are many reasons. You can look at the writings of some of the earliest “Church Fathers” such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement I, and many others, and they are clearly Catholic in their theology and in their views of the nature of the Church. The promises of Jesus pertaining to the Church only make sense in a Catholic paradigm. The definition and nature of Scripture only make sense in a Catholic paradigm. Catholic theology is eminently reasonable and consistent.
There are too many contradictions in principle and in logic/reason within Protestantism (or any sect that emerged from Protestantism such as JW or Mormon).
Based on my experience (which is all we have, really), if Jesus truly rose from the dead, then the Catholic Church is where he is found.