HOME | DD
kevron2001 — How did the apostles die?
#apostles #bible #christian #jesus #religion #text #word
Published: 2016-12-09 02:18:31 +0000 UTC; Views: 51014; Favourites: 536; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
One of the most convincing truths that Jesus really is the Son of God is how the apostles all died. They were eyewitnesses of His ministry, His miracles, and His resurrection. They had seen the risen Lord with their own eyes and they could not deny it, even if it cost them their lives.
Related content
Comments: 117
Thank you for sharing this. I knew some of these facts, but not all. These people died for a cause they wholeheartedly believed in, because they SAW what Jesus was, they knew him. NO ONE endures so much for a lie! It will be a great privilege to meet them all one day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for posting. I'm sorry that people cannot treat each other with respect.....what I have read here saddens me. I appreciate your willingness to subject yourself to unkind, insensitive comments and to continue to shine His light in dark places.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
As a Muslim, we love Jesus (Peace be upon him) and his apostles, but we do not believe in him as a God or son of God. He was one of the greatest messengers of God, and he will come back as a sign of the end of world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They cheated people by taking all they property and saying that they dont need it cause Jeesus is coming back soon.
They where scam artists and that was their punishment, for ruining so many people lifes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Right. You know this how? Some crap you read on an atheist website? If you believe this you are a special kind of stupid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
From bilbe:
Acts 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold
And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
They sold their land and when money is all spend, what you think happened then? They fucking starved or found more peeps to scam.
Acts 5:1 Peter murdering couple for not giving all money.
Man, you dont have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what they where doing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sherlock Homes would have never reached such an illogical conclusion based on nothing but out-of-context "evidence", incorrect assumptions, and personal bias. It never ceases to amaze me how atheist claim the Bible for their "proof" but reject any biblical evidence against them. Like I said, a special kind of stupid.
Barnabas gave of his own free will, because he believed, and wanted to help Peter spread the message. "Distribution was unto every man according as he had need." That sounds a lot like the rich giving to the poor. What is wrong with that? There is certainly nothing unusual about preachers and missionaries (or even politicians or organizations) being supported by those who believe in whatever cause is being furthered. The money was used for food and cloths, not whores, cars, mansions and gold (like certain modern false prophets who will remain nameless).
Yes, the Apostles relied on the generosity of the believers in order to eat and carry on with their mission. What of it?
As for Ananias and Sapphira, exactly how are you getting the idea that Peter "murdered" them? The Bible does not say "Peter slew them". It says (Acts 5:5) that Ananis "fell down, and gave up the ghost". Same with his wife. Their sin was not in refusing to give the church all the money; they had a right to keep as much of the proceeds as they wanted. The problem was that they were lying about it and claiming that they had given everything in order to appear to be as good as Barnabas. They were mocking God (Galatians 6:7). Their death was at the hands of God, not Peter.
Further, if you bothered to continue reading the rest of the chapter, you would find that the death of Ananias and Sapphira had a positive influence on the church community. More sincere believers continued to join, but those who had other motives stayed away.
I would suggest you get yourself a study Bible and check these claims for yourself, instead of simply parroting what you read on some anti-Christian website. I have my Bible opened to the very verses you claim, and it is quite obvious that you are taking everything out of context. But that is what atheist always do.
I would also suggest to you (and everyone else) the book "What's So Great about Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza.
Finally, don't waste your time replying. Arguing on the Internet is a fools game that I will not play. My brother is a militant atheist and my sister-in-law is a Bible-hating Wiccan, so I have heard (and nuked) all the arguments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry about my bad english, but i try explain.
Back then if you had land, its good, you got your living out of it, but if you didn't have any land you where basically slave.
If you sold your land and house and gave all money to apostles, you where totally on their mercy.
Living in communism, if you angered leaders any way you where shunned and left trying to stay alive without any money or property, probably selling yourself to galley slave to survive.
Ok Jesus was supposed to come back on those people lifetime and brought kingdom of haven with him.
When people started to die, money running out and Jesus didn't came back, what you think they did?
You really think holy spirit was murdering people for lying rather than cult leader was murdering them for money, power and control?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First, what evidence do you have that people thought Jesus would return "in their life time"? You are making an incredible leap of logic based on nothing other than your own anti-religious bias. The very fact that you cannon distinguish between a "religion" and a "cult" tells me all I need to know.
Second, the Bible only says that they died. You are again making an incredible leap of logic.
Third, what makes you think they "ran out of money"? You honestly think they are stupid enough to leave themselves without a means of support? Another leap of logic.
Fourth, what the hell does communism have to do with anything in the Bible? You are babbling.
Finally, what "money, power and control" did they have? They were poor, they lived poor, and they died hunted criminals. Special kind of stupid indeed.
Your extreme, close-minded, ignorant bias is obvious.
Comparing a fledgling Christianity to Heavens Gate is a false comparison, like apples to moon rocks. Nobody with any real intelligence or integrity would make such a comparison.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do not seek a wife. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. 1 Corinthians 7:27,29-31
For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. Matthew 16: 27, 28
The end of all things is near… 1 Peter 4:7
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When I read your post, I laughed so hard milk came out my nose. An Atheist commenting on Christian beliefs is as funny as a Klansman talking about Black history or an Iranian “expert” pontificating on Western culture. Seriously, is this all you have? I mean, I knew that Atheist always take Bible passages out of context, but this really takes the cake. Not only did you cherry-pick some verses and ignore the verses that came before or after (or in some cases in-between) and assign your own meanings to them, you actually edited out entire lines and words from within the verses.
You are either being willfully ignorant or deliberately deceitful. So which is it? Are you an idiot or a liar?
This is what 1 Corinthians 7:25-31 ACTUALLY says (KJV):
“Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give you my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But if you marry, thou hast not sinned, nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh; but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none. And those that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.”
Notice the parts you conveniently edited out? You cannot take words out of context and rearrange them to your own likening. Unless you work for CNN or the NYT.
If you read the entire chapter, you would know that Paul is merely talking about the marriage of a believer to an unbeliever, a common problem with the early church – especially in Corinth. He even makes it clear that this is his personal opinion and not a commandment from God. The point is he prefers staying single himself, as it gives him more time to focus on his ministry, but if a man wants to marry more power to him.
His reference to “time is short” likely has nothing at all to do with Jesus eventual return. It is more likely he is referring to the persecutions Christians are suffering from; persecution that had not yet reached Corinth at this time.
As for the rest of your creative editing, I will leave it to others to read the actual passages for themselves. Bottom line is that not ONCE in the Bible does any apostle say “sell all your things and give the money to me, then go and die of starvation”. Seriously, the second coming of Christ is a bedrock staple of Christian theology, but do you see anyone doing what you accuse these early Christians of doing? Logic dictates that if they had been “running a scam” as you ridiculously claim than Christianity would have died out when they died.
Fact: there is NOTHING in the Biblical or historical record that supports your hateful claim. Period.
A special kind of stupid, indeed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have to understand how life was back then and you need to read between lines.
I ask you again, do you really think holy ghost killed those two people? Seriously?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Read between the lines"? "understand how life was back then"? Seriously? How do YOU know "how life was back then"? You are making some incredible leaps of logic and assumptions based on nothing more than your own pre-conceived biases. A lawyer who attempted to use the "read between the lines" argument would be held in contempt. Do you have any proof beyond your own fantasy?
These two died from what we would describe as natural causes, probably cardiac arrest. What is plainly clear however is that Peter did not kill them. Whenever one human kills another in the Bible the terms "slew", "put to death" or "put to the sword" are used. If Peter had them killed then the Bible would have plainly said so. But it didn't, and they are not the first to die by Gods will.
Remember that their crime was not refusing to everything to the Church - the "required" tithe is only 10 percent - it was the fact that they lied about it in order to receive the praise not of God, but of humans. They were classical hypocrites.
The Bible says what it says, not what YOU want it to say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, you are believer? so you are brainwashed as heck and its easy for you to believe that Holy ghost killed Ananias and Safira.
But what about law? How about Ananias and Safira relatives and neighbours? You think they believed such a obvious bullshit story?
Some authority, like city guard comes and asks why there is two corpses?
Peter explains that he was talking them about some missing money, when some ghost flied from window and killed them.
Guard asks why it didn't kill you?
Peter is.. um, because i was carrying this cross shaped lucky charm, wanna buy one?
And guard was like; i see, it happens, please carry on.
Because it was pretty much most common reason to die those days?
How Peter found out that they didn't give all money? Why didn't he trust his flock? Why he had some young men with him, if he just wanted to talk?
Why so mafia Peter?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So now you are so desperate you are reduced to typical, mindless Atheist name-calling. Pathetic. Calling someone who doesn't share your beliefs "brainwashed" is proof that you have NOTHING.
You are an idiot. You don't even freaking know what the Holy Ghost is (hint: its not Hollywood "ghost", moron.)
As for their neighbors, they WITNESSED it. Peter was one man with NO government authority or power. Do you honestly think that, if he murdered them, that their family would not have sought revenge? Are you so stupid that you think he would actually record the murder in writing? Do you actually think he would attract followers if he was murdering them? If it happened as you vision, then it would either not be recorded in the Bible at all or recorded multiple times. Not only that, but as I have tried to get through your thick skull, the Bible would have specifically said "Peter slew them".
As for your fantasy "guard", all they would have seen is two persons who died of natural causes. People dropped dead all the time back then. The very fact that nothing was done proves your fantasy false.
You have done nothing but continue to repeat your same asinine fantasy over and over. You have offered no counter-argument, and nothing to back up your claim, either Biblical OR historical.
You are beginning to bore me. Go ahead and have your fantasy. Even the Flying Spaghetti-Monster is laughing at you. You are truly a special kind of stupid. I am finished with you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Who started name calling?
Which one is more likely?
1. People killing people cause of money.
2. Creator of freaking universe putting on sheet ghost costume and not fixing any real problems, but killing people cause of money.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have debunked your fantasy several times. You have not answered a single thing I have said. You have not read a single thing I posted. You just keep repeating the same idiotic claim based on nothing more than your own personal bias and hate.
This point proves that you know NOTHING about even the most basic parts of Christian Theology. Good God, you actually believe the Holy Ghost is something you would see on T.A.P.S. If you are going to criticize something, at least learn enough about it so you don't look like a complete fool. I don't have the time or the qualifications to teach you, but there are plenty of resources out there. Or are you afraid of having your world-view challenged?
Bottom line is you have offered nothing but speculation. If someone came along and claimed that Bigfoot killed these people that would have just as much credibility as the crap you have been spewing.
So how about some actual Biblical or historical proof? Unless you have any of that, go away. I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Interesting infographie, although the lack of specific, traceable, non-Christian sources is a letdown. (please don't just answer "read and study", give historian names, dates and papers for each)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
As a Christian myself, I wouldn't necessarily consider the knowledge of their deaths "convincing" toward the identity of Christ. I knew that all of them except one died violently, though I couldn't remember which was the odd one out until I looked at this. The willingness to die for something doesn't act as proof that what they are dying for is truth. There have been plenty of idiots in the past who have died for stupid reasons, including Christians. The only example I need to pull up is Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre, or the incident that birthed the "Drinking the Kool Aid" phrase. Jones was what we all consider a cultist because of his actions, but he was also a methodist minister. (Arguably the things he taught weren't exactly canon to the scriptures, but that's getting off topic).
Point is: people will die for anything that they deem important, whether or not it is necessarily true. So I wouldn't consider this knowledge convincing so much as compelling -- which is all it really needs to be, honestly. Christians were never asked to prove what we believe is truth, after all; only to share the good news to those who are willing to hear it and decide for themselves what they believe to be true. It was definitely refreshing to see something like this on the front page though! Great piece, and thanks for sharing it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
The point that Kevron's image is driving home is that these men were thoroughly convinced of the truth of Christ's role as the promised Messiah, So convinced that they were willing to face the ultimate consequence, confident that they would rise from the dead if their lives were lost. I cannot say that I believe most Christians today are as dedicated. Then again, only a small few today face the persecution that these faithful ones did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Excellent points. One other thing this information does as well is put to bed the idea that the apostles were just making up stories to gain Power and/or Money.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for sharing such a thoughtful comment. While not religious myself, anything that has had and continues to have so far-reaching an impact as Abrahamic religion is worth serious study and consideration.
As to the persecution the Christians suffered at Roman hands, it's worth noting that if one tries to see the Christians through Roman eyes, they would've appeared both atheistic and seditious. In the Greco-Roman religious view, all men carried a spark of divinity within them ('God' as immanent, as opposed to transcendent) sharing a bit of something with the gods. As chief magistrate, the Augustus (the emperor's real title) was considered a greater divine than the average Roman (some patrician families, indeed, claimed to be able to trace their lineage to the gods themselves).
As a test of loyalty to the empire, and recognition of the divinity of the Augustus, Christians were asked to 'make sacrifice' to the Augustus, sacrifice being to place a pinch of incense into a fire. Many Christians refused, but it is thought, though, that many complied. The depredations of the Romans proceeded, therefore, from religious offense, not a cynical pursuit of raw power. And it is worth noting, that when Christianity became the official religion of the empire with its adoption by Constantine in 395 C.E., the Christians persecuted the Roman religious holdouts with a ferocity which exceeded that of their erstwhile oppressors, causing so serious a 'brain drain' as the prominent left the empire, that the premier civilization on planet Earth in the fifth century was the India of Chandragupta II.
The sources for this are Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God, in four volumes, from 1959 to 1968, and Sir Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, in six volumes, from 1776 to 1789.
As to the deaths of the Apostles, while it is certainly credible that they both endeavored to spread their religion as well as suffered their demise willingly in service to it, it is also worth noting that the world of that time probably responded to them rather in principle the same way Attorney General Janet Reno and the ATF responded to David Koresh (it is worth noting that there is a chapel in Waco, Texas, devoted to Koresh as the risen Christ). Then as now, apparently, most are horrified by a cultist...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very few historians, regardless of religion, will deny the fact that Jesus the Nazarene was a real historical figure. Likewise his brother James is mentioned several times in historical texts. Paul makes mention of both Peter and James in his own letters, which gives strong credibility to them as well. Yet somehow a small group of people spread a religion that, in spite of well recorded persecution, often violent in the extreme, not only survived, but flourished. The historical evidence of many of these men, is scarce and hard to find, and the truth of their deaths is murky. Yet it faced serious trials, troubles, and assaults and has survived. Believe or not, Christianity really is a fascinating religion.
Thank you for sharing this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I knew about Peter but not the rest, they all died really horribly o.o
Yikes these comments.
If your not religious or don't share the same religion with someone else, the least you can do is respect others beliefs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
they got killed and persecuted but almost 30% of people living in the earth are now christian. how amazing it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm not religious, but I find how Andrew died the most interesting, as he's my country's patron saint (Scotland), and we adopted the cross into our flag!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
LMAO You are the most retarded human beign i have seen, claiming that a myth of the primitive humans is the truth, You bring shame to the human race with your primitive believes, disgusting stupid piece of shit you are, learn to use your brain. Can believe that am living in the era of stupidity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Thank you for you comments! Would you prefer me to delete this picture and create some artwork that you approve of?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes please do 
You are cancer for the human spicie
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I bet i still can speak more langueages then you even if its not perfect. LMAO santa and the fairy tooth are topics you may also wanna talk about.
God is real
if a person has hallucination is madness if a group has hallucination is religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Welcome to the end of the line, chum. And good-bye!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Dayum, the banhammer was swung fast.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh shut up you pretentious fuck. Don't be an ignorant ass it just makes you look like a hypocrite.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lmao he is claming to be owner of the truth! who is the most pretentious here?!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How exactly is he not telling the truth? It is highly possible for the apostles, and Jesus himself to have actually existed as real historical figures. Whether or not there were any real miracles and what not is irrelevant, all that this person is claiming in this work is that the apostles died for what they believed in, as many early Christians did back in those days and throughout the rule of the Roman Empire. Christians had to hide their religious beliefs or suffer death, in one case by fire where the Roman Emperor, Nero I believe it was, ordered that all Christians' homes be burned to the ground with the families still inside. This an actual, historically recorded event with proof that it took place (the Romans where very keen on documenting events) so how is it wrong or not believable to say that these men, in some way, actually lived and died as their stories depict?
In this narrative, are you not acting as the Romans did? When they kill and denied human beings for believing differently from themselves? All I ask of you is to consider that you cannot fight ignorance with more ignorance. There are indeed many Christians who you could say are ignorant and bigoted in some of their beliefs such as the belief that a gay couple shouldn't marry and that to be gay is a sin. However, when you combat that ignorance and prejudice with more ignorance and prejudices out of spite (or perhaps actual sheer ignorance) you accomplish nothing except to make a total and complete hypocrite of yourself and restart the cycle all over again.
You claim to be superior to this person? How can you say that when it is not, as you say, the truth?
BOOM BITCH.
*Drops mic*
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It might be interesting to note that Roman record keeping does not support the Jesus story as told in the Bible. Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish historian who did live during that period and who's nephew was married to Herod's daughter mentions nothing about Jesus. This of course, does not disprove the existence of Jesus, but it does suggest that he didn't have the local effect that many Christians would like to believe.
It has been pointed out that the main reason the Roman government disliked Christians was their refusal to tithe at the local temples. Since the government was skimming the temple treasuries, this was equivalent to tax evasion, something the empire took a very dim view of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, that is very interesting, I didn't know about Philo but now I think I might look into him a bit more. Thank you, I appreciate it! : )
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I need a like button for your comment, hahaha, great answer : )
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Leave them alone. I'm not religious, but I don't bash on others for having one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i cant tolerate religous people who think they own the truth
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
Well I can't tolerate you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So who does "own" the truth? Or are you a relativist? I've never known a Christian to claim "ownership" of the truth (though I have know a lot of atheists to put words into Christian's mouths). Anyone who knows the truth can live by it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>