Could the apostles die as martyrs without recanting because they would rather die instead of being known as liars?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Titas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Except the whole false belief they would be spreading would be shameful as well - Christianity was considered very shameful by itself, so it’s not that they were avoiding something even more shameful, but were already spreading something shameful. Admitting to lying wouldn’t have done a thing.
 
Last edited:
Of course, the Apostles would have been in the position of knowing for certain whether what they believed was false or not - so this rules out intentional deception on their part.
 
Don’t be overenthusiastic though. It’s not a wise move to show your cards like that. I’m not saying you shouldn’t argue for your position (I agree with you), but you shouldn’t be overly confident / quasi-outrage-like (?) in your responses.
 
Last edited:
Could the apostles die as martyrs without recanting because they would rather die instead of being known as liars? When it comes to psychology of ancient mind (the importance of honor), this question sounds kind of hard to get through. Can anyone comment on that?
In the first place if they care so much about honor why would they invent such a lie and agree to all tell it, and teach it to others?
In the second place, it may be plausible that one man would go so far as to die rather than admit a lie: but–
Eleven of the Twelve were martyred for teaching that Christ is God. All of them died by torture. How plausible is it that all of them would rather be tortured to death than save themselves by admitting the lie?
 
Could the apostles die as martyrs without recanting because they would rather die instead of being known as liars? When it comes to psychology of ancient mind (the importance of honor), this question sounds kind of hard to get through. Can anyone comment on that?
This idea just doesn’t really make sense because it goes against human nature.

Yes, perhaps ONE man might be willing to die in order to avoid being known as a liar. Or perhaps a group of 12-15 men who are all in the same room might be willing to die together (even for a lie).

However, 12-15 men all alone, spread out across the ancient world, from Spain to India are not very likely to all die for a lie.

Humans don’t want to die, and surely most are not willing to die for a lie, ESP when they are surrounded by strangers and don’t have to worry about shaming their family.

If all the Apostles died as martyrs in Jerusalem, this arguments MIGHT hold a little more water, since they would want to avoid shaming their families.

But since they were all around the ancient world, by themselves (plus an aide), any family shame would be lessened (or eleminited). So while perhaps one person might still go forwarded with martyrdom for a lie, it’s very doubtful that all of them would.
 
This conversation is proceeding as if there are only two choices - every word of the Gospels is true, or the Apostles are liars. Surely we are all thoughtful enough to realize those are not the only two options…
 
A third possibility would be that the Apostles could have just died anyway whether they recanted or not.
 
After pondering for a moment or two, we might consider the fact that the liar is exalted in today’s culture, but there are still martyrs. It was not a phenomenon which occurred only 2,000 years ago and then stopped. The faith has been perpetuated at uncountable cost in human suffering and death - death for simple belief. And, why have so many despotic leaders, one after another, demanded that Christ be denied?

New day, new attempt by the evil one to deconstruct his creator. Now that is a hate crime.
 
Of course, the Apostles would have been in the position of knowing for certain whether what they believed was false or not - so this rules out intentional deception on their part.
That’s not the case. We are told that that’s the case. But what we are told may not be true.

What do you know about my brother’s beliefs if I tell you he believes in aliens?
 
Which is why I added the clarifier of intentional deception. Hallucination is a different topic that does admit the Apostles were honest about their reports. As for your brother, in the usual course of events I’d believe you because I give you the benefit of the doubt about communicating information.
 
Last edited:
Eleven of the Twelve were martyred for teaching that Christ is God. All of them died by torture. How plausible is it that all of them would rather be tortured to death than save themselves by admitting the lie?
Details on how they died is sketchy to say the very least. And dying for something in which you believe has no bearing on the veracity of your belief.
 
…in the usual course of events I’d believe you because I give you the benefit of the doubt about communicating information.
As you are regarding the story of the apostles. You are giving Paul the benefit of the doubt. Despite the fact that you know he has to convey the story in a manner which makes it appear more truthful. I won’t go so far as to say that he had an agenda. But if you really want people to believe something, there is a tendency to guild the lilly somewhat. And hey, 500 people saw the risen Christ as well!
 
In that society? If Paul had even tried to make a false claim, that would’ve been instantly shot down. People back then didn’t need any cameras to breach privacy - they were collectivists that quickly spread information for the sake of social cohesion and keeping tabs on everyone.

Paul would have been caught red-handed spinning yarns and we would have seen this everywhere in the ancient records - except we don’t. This wasn’t the type of environment where you can just invent something to support a dangerous and shameful movement without being checked and probbed.
 
Last edited:
In that society? If Paul had even tried to make a false claim, that would’ve been instantly shot down. People back then didn’t need any cameras to breach privacy - they were collectivists that quickly spread information for the sake of social cohesion and keeping tabs on everyone.

Paul would have been caught red-handed spinning yarns and we would have seen this everywhere in the ancient records - except we don’t. This wasn’t the type of environment where you can just invent something to support a dangerous and shameful movement without being checked and probbed.
C’mon, NB. He wrote his epistles in Ephesus, which is over a thousand miles from where the events took place. Maybe a risky month’s travel overland. And decades after they took place. People make the most outrageous claims these days and people accept them without question.

Would you travel for a month to check out something I said about what happened twenty years ago in a foreign country?
 
And dying for something in which you believe has no bearing on the veracity of your belief.
True, but it does provide some evidence against the idea of the person pulling a con job.

Liars are rarely willing to die for what they know is a lie. True believers are sometimes willing to die for what they believe to be true.
 
Many of the converts were Diaspora Jews - who did indeed take yearly trips to Jerusalem and could ask around for refutation. And again, a social issue like this would have spread especially since Christianity was spreading. People know that they should talk to the locals to check for accuracy, and the government itself eventually became involved with this. Not to mention the many claimed miracles Paul did that were checkable to the locals involved in each region.

And “these days” aren’t ancient days; neither is Christianity a flash in the fog - it was a shameful religion that was perceived as dangerous to society and a scandal - it wasn’t the Cottingley fairies.
 
Last edited:
48.png
Freddy:
And dying for something in which you believe has no bearing on the veracity of your belief.
True believers are sometimes willing to die for what they believe to be true.
Exactly right. For what they believe to be true. Which isn’t the same as dying for something which is true.
 
Pick any crime drama. At gunpoint, or being strangled, the truth comes out. Art imitates life. Therefore, for one man to die for a lie is certainly possible. For twelve to die for a lie becomes increasingly remote. For hundreds of thousands over 2,000 years, in all cultures and nations to die for a single repeated lie is as close to zero as one may come.
 
48.png
phil19034:
48.png
Freddy:
And dying for something in which you believe has no bearing on the veracity of your belief.
True believers are sometimes willing to die for what they believe to be true.
Exactly right. For what they believe to be true. Which isn’t the same as dying for something which is true.
Correct. The OP’s question was about how the apostles would rather die as martyrs than live as liars.

The response is that the notion that they would all be willing to die for something they KNEW was a lie is ridiculous. Their martyrdom is evidence that they believed.

Now that doesn’t disprove this guy’s argument (below), but it does throw water on the idea that they were all trying to pull a con job.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Many of the converts were Diaspora Jews - who did indeed take yearly trips to Jerusalem and could ask around for refutation. And again, a social issue like this would have spread especially since Christianity was spreading. People know that they should talk to the locals to check for accuracy, and the government itself eventually became involved with this. Not to mention the many claimed miracles Paul did that were checkable to the locals involved in each region.

And “these days” aren’t ancient days; neither is Christianity a flash in the fog - it was a shameful religion that was perceived as dangerous to society and a scandal - it wasn’t the Cottingley fairies.
I think you’re stretching the point that facts could be checked way past a point where it’s credible. But even if someone thought to check, what exactly would they check? With who? How? We’re not talking about sending out a message on Facebook to see if anyone had some info.

All you’d get is someone suggesting that they couldn’t find any evidence to back up what Paul had said. What’s going to change? You’ve got a third of the US today thinking that the election was rigged. With zero evidence. Do you want to suggest that two thousand years ago things would be actually better?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top