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.
NormalBeliever said:
What I said previously explains this - Christianity wasn’t perceived well or even neutrally, but was seen as insane, shameful and even dangerous, and was in a very inferior position to start with. People would be heavily biased against it. Religions such as Buddhism didn’t have that problem, and Islam spread through the sword and militarily.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that makes absolutely no sense, and is counter-historical. All new religions are resisted by those that came before. The fact that there are massive religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so forth that Christians believe to be factually unfounded shows that the idea that Christianity must have been supported by evidence makes no sense.

And we don’t have to go back to ancient history to see that. Mormonism was certainly all the things you attribute to Christianity - perceived as unwelcome, shameful, dangerous, and insane - but it has grown like wildfire. By your lights, that means we must assume that Smith’s statements have some basis in fact. Otherwise why did he die for Mormonism, and why did all those people pick up and follow him and Young to the middle of nowhere (many dying in the effort)?

I am not meaning any of this to doubt Christianity or its origins, but to say that the origins must have once had a factual basis (beyond what we still have, which is fairly thin) or Christianity would not have thrived is simply not a supportable or persuasive argument.
 
These really aren’t good reasons to be skeptical though. All new religions are new, but not all new religions are equally controversial. In the case of Christianity, its main figure was a crucified man which was already a massive turn-off, while other aspects of Christianity were also offensive during that time - demanding loyalty to Christ over family, refusing to worship the gods of the state and demanding their abandonment, etc. These things by themselves made Christianity extremely repugnant to people - it’s not something typical of all religions or present to the same degree in them.

As for Mormonism - for one, it came into being in a modern social context where shame wasn’t as important or crucial to society as it was for the ancients; it was a new faith in a new time where different values held. Second, one of its most offensive teachings was polygamy which was eventually abandoned - something which would have helped out against pressure, whereas Christianity didn’t change any one of its teachings. Third, due to the fact this was America which generally affirmed values related to tolerance and freedom, Smith still had some sympathizers which helped him even if they disagreed with his views, which wouldn’t exactly have been popular in the ancient world.
 
Last edited:
Except they didn’t die together: no more than two died at any one time, spread over many years.
 
Paul performed signs so publicly that in Athens, the pagan priests mistook him for Zeus. They could certainly interview them about that time that several of their priests converted to this new religion or that time they chased a man out of town because he refused to be considered a god after working such signs.
 
NormalBeliever said:
And then the Trump supporters actually succeed in convincing enough people to eventually convert most of the country to believing fraud is real - that’s more akin to what happened with Christianity.
Click to expand...
And you think it’s a good idea to use an example where people convert with zero evidence and they actually believe a lie? Have you thought this through…?
 
I’m sorry. I respect your enthusiasm and your persistence, but those arguments are neither factual nor persuasive. And that is coming from a Christian - imagine what those of other faiths would think.
 
You have a couple of misconceptions…
If the message was so horrible it wouldn’t have attracted anyone. It certainly didn’t attract the elites. But, the message was received by some in the lower classes…very much so. For those that the Roman society was ignoring and hurting them, some people would have been very receptive. These lower class people didn’t trust the elites. They trusted their own sources.

Second…people were skeptical of those outside their class, not those within it. It took quite a while before Christianity attracted any elites.

Honestly, I know you believe what you’re saying but furthering your knowledge about the classes and the interactions with elites would be a good education for you. What your calling shameful and horrid is what the elites thought…and they formed no part of the earliest church because of that. The poor were a completely different story. It’s a message they were very open to and appealed them.

The poor believed the message, thus they believed the miracles attached. No one fact checked. They aren’t enlightened 21st century thinkers. They weren’t stupid, they were just different in their thinking than us.
 
If the Apostles wanted to tell lies they wouldn’t say that women were the first ones to discover Jesus resurrected. They wouldn’t put in so much embarrassing details. If they were lying and trying to start a fake religion they would make themselves look awesome. Also they are cowards, Peter denies christ three times after saying he wouldn’t and then the disciples run away when Jesus is arrested. And who are the brave ones? Women!

Now who wrote this down. Men. Now, what man is going to write down that he was hiding for fear of the Jews, while the women went and discovered the empty tomb? Nobody, but all the men say that. Now if I was making this up, here’s how I’d write this down I’d say… “We marched right down there and moved that sissy Roman guard out of the way then we saw Jesus who congratulated us on our great faith, and then we went and comforted the trembling women.”

It’s clear that the Apostles were concerned with the truth. Not lies.

If you think it was some kind of conspiracy it comes down to this. Three motivations for conspiracy are Sex, Money, and Power or some combination thereof. What did the Apostles get for saying that Jesus is the son of God and he rose from the dead?
  1. Did they get chicks for saying this?
    No
  2. Did they get power?
    No
  3. Did they get wealthy?
    No
Especially Paul. He had the most to lose by converting to Christianity.
 
Duke12VonFalkenburg said:
If they were lying and trying to start a fake religion they would make themselves look awesome.
Click to expand...
I agree. And to those who say well no founder of a religion has done that, I point to the prophet Mohammed, he got power, wealth and many wives from it.
 
Duke12VonFalkenburg said:
What did the Apostles get for saying that Jesus is the son of God and he rose from the dead?
Click to expand...
We don’t know if they said anything at all about it. It’s second hand information in that Paul said that they had seen Jesus. We have no first hand accounts whatsoever. Matthew also says that he was seen by the twelve but it is generally accepted that Matthew didn’t even write that gospel himself. And incidentally, Paul never mentions anything about the women.

So no-one can say ‘the disciples said…’. What you can say is ‘it is reported that the disciples said…’.
 
Possibly because it was a whopper of a mistake. If you are familiar with Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, the theory explains why people tend to believe EVEN MORE when things don’t turn out as they had thought or predicted. This is because people aren’t willing to admit they were wrong after putting in so much time and effort with regard to what they believe. Admitting such would mean that they are fools for having invested so much in their belief in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
We don’t know if they said anything at all about it.
Click to expand...
What’s up with the We don’t know talk? :confused:

There is a creed of the earliest Christian Church a creed that reports on the resurrection of Jesus. This creed has been dated back by scholars to Within Months of the death of Jesus. That is historical gold. A newsflash from ancient history.

Paul met with Peter and James in Jerusalem for 15 days. So he obviously heard what they had to say. We also have the letters written by Peter. We have Paul’s and Peter’s letters so we know exactly what they have to say.

Let’s also not forget that 500 people saw Jesus at the same time.

What difference does it make that Paul didn’t mention the women? It’s not the Gospel of Copy Paste.

I have to ask what exactly is your position on this? What exactly is it that you say happened in 33AD?
I’m curious.
 
Duke12VonFalkenburg said:
48.png
Freddy:
We don’t know if they said anything at all about it.
Click to expand...
What’s up with the We don’t know talk? :confused:

There is a creed of the earliest Christian Church a creed that reports on the resurrection of Jesus. This creed has been dated back by scholars to Within Months of the death of Jesus. That is historical gold. A newsflash from ancient history.

Paul met with Peter and James in Jerusalem for 15 days. So he obviously heard what they had to say. We also have the letters written by Peter. We have Paul’s and Peter’s letters so we know exactly what they have to say.

Let’s also not forget that 500 people saw Jesus at the same time.

What difference does it make that Paul didn’t mention the women? It’s not the Gospel of Copy Paste.

I have to ask what exactly is your position on this? What exactly is it that you say happened in 33AD?
I’m curious.
Click to expand...
The creed relates to a spiritual resurrection. Not necessarily a bodily one.

Of course Paul knew and spoke to the disciples. But it’s what he wrote about them is under discussion. I know my neighbour quite well - does that mean everything I say that he said will be true?

And we don’t know that Jesus was seen by 500 people. All we know is that Paul said that he was seen by 500. There is not a skerrik of evidence to back this up in any way.

And I don’t know what exactly happened in 33 AD. Because the very few partial reports we have do not agree on the details, are often contradictory, are second hand at best, are anecdotal, in some cases written by unknown authors, are not verified by any contemporary writings at the time of the event, were written decades after the event itself and serve a purpose that necessarily casts doubts on why they were written in the way that they were written.

Apart from that…
 
Last edited:
Wow… are you serious? Have you thought this through yourself before responding? You… DO realise the obvious point being made here?

If masses of people completely opposed to something suddenly start believing it… then maybe there actually IS something to that. Maybe evidence of some sort… The very example I used is meant to higlight how unlikely it is for people like this to believe with NO evidence
 
So… would you mind explaining why the arguments are wrong or what’s wrong with them then? Do you have any sound reasons for what you’re saying?
 
The shameful aspects of Christianity would have been bad for all classes - the majority of the population wouldn’t have been elite, so it’s not as if the criteria for shame only applied to a small minority. It was a wholesale societal Zeitgeist. It would not have appealed to the Jewish poor for the previously mentioned reasons and because getting it wrong could lead to damnation for blasphemy and idolatry. It wouldn’t have appealed to the pagan poor because of the shame of crucifixion, background, demands for loyalty, refusal to venerate state gods, etc.

Becoming a Christian carried even more sacrifices than living out life as usual, so it’s not as if people would have gained more by becoming one - they would have suffered more than they already had.

And love the irony of saying we are “enlightened 21st century thinkers” while then having to deny the ancients were stupid.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
The creed relates to a spiritual resurrection. Not necessarily a bodily one.
Click to expand...
The Creed says He rose from the dead. Bodily ressurection, I dare to presume.
Freddy said:
And I don’t know what exactly happened in 33 AD. Because the very few partial reports we have do not agree on the details, are often contradictory, are second hand at best, are anecdotal
Click to expand...
There are no contradictions. All of the accounts have the same basic story.
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
48.png
Pattylt:
No one would have “fact checked” any claims one way or the other.
Click to expand...
So all those visits to the Sanhedrin weren’t that?
Click to expand...
I’m not understanding your comment…sorry…

Who visited the Sanhedrin? The common people converting weren’t originally a separate entity and would have had little to no interaction with the Sanhedrin. They were just poor Jews and mostly outside of Jerusalem. Thanks for any clarification you can give me!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top