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

[Freddy]

If the skeptics wanted to be consistent in their level skepticism towards the New Testament they should throw out everything they think they know about Alexander the Great, Caesar, Plato, Pliny the Younger, and Aristotle.

@Freddy sure cast all the doubt and skepticism you want at the writings of Paul and the martyrdom of the Apostles but that isn’t what Christianity depends on. It depends squarely on the Resurrection of Jesus. The greatest miracle in human history.

I will gladly accept what, for example, Plato is meant to have said. And cogitate on it and concern myself as to whether it is worth incorporating into my world view. As I will with that which Jesus is meant to have said.

But what Plato is meant to have said isn’t given greater weight by some supernatural event. Even a belief that he existed is not relevant to the belief in a poorly recorded religious event. I give him equal status as a philosopher with Jesus.

If you think that the life and times of Jesus is worthy of the same evidential investigation as is Plato’s then you’d have a point.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Plato is meant to have said isn’t given greater weight by some supernatural event.

Jesus claimed to be God. If that wasn’t true. Then he was a raving mad man not a philosopher. As for that supernatural event you refer to it seems to me that no amount of evidence could convince you that a supernatural event is within the realm of possibility. You dismiss it completely and utterly. If you saw it with your own eyes you would probably convince yourself that it was an illusion or a hallucination despite any evidence to the contrary.

Something happened in 33 A.D. that changed the world. What was it? If that Supernatural Event never occurred then Christianity should not even exist.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[fhansen]

I doubt if a liar would bother being a martyr; he wouldn’t have enough honor to care to begin with.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Plato is meant to have said isn’t given greater weight by some supernatural event.

Jesus claimed to be God. If that wasn’t true…

No. It was said that Jesus said He was the Son of God. Maybe He did say it. Maybe He did and actually believed it. Maybe He actually was the Son of God.

I know too much about people and too much about religion and enough about what evidence I would need to believe it. Let’s face it, if it wasn’t for Constantine then we’d be discussing a little known religion, an offshoot of Judaism, that some people accepted in the Middle East up to about the 5th century.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

No. It was said that Jesus said He was the Son of God. Maybe He did say it. Maybe He did and actually believed it. Maybe He actually was the Son of God.

Think about what you are implying here.

1. If Jesus did not say he was the Son of God then why where the Jewish authorities so hostile towards him? Why would so many people LIE and say he said he was the Son of God when he really didn’t?
2. If he said it and believed it and if it wasn’t true then he was a mad man. Because only mad man would think he is God. If it wasn’t true that what about the empty tomb?
3. Maybe he actually was the son of God. This maybe has the most evidence supporting it. But I think you dismiss it just because it implies the existence of the supernatural.

Let’s face it, if it wasn’t for Constantine then we’d be discussing a little known religion

Christianity was already growing before Milvian Bridge. But, yeah Constantine’s Vision changed history. Was it just a vision? A coincedence? It was another example of God’s sovereignty over the universe. God’s victory is inevitable.

 

[Freddy]

Christianity was already growing before Milvian Bridge. But, yeah Constantine’s Vision changed history. Was it just a vision? A coincedence?

A roll of the celestial dice. That’s what everything actually is, Duke.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

A roll of the celestial dice. That’s what everything actually is, Duke.

Haha well the dice keep landing on 7. I mean seriously who would have thought? If you take in the whole picture going all the way back to Abraham. I’d say the celestial dice is loaded and only a fool would keep betting against the strange 3 in person-1 in being entity that is throwing the loaded celestial dice.

I like that “Celestial Dice” the only difference is that I think Someone is throwing the celestial dice.

“He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding…”
Daniel 2:21

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

What we need is some verifiable details on when, where, how and why they died.

Oh, I thought you said asking the question “WHY” wasn’t important. Or is it only important sometimes?

(I know what you are going to say) I’m just having fun. haha

 

[Freddy]

I like that “Celestial Dice” the only difference is that I think Someone is throwing the celestial dice.

Happenstance and free will would seem to place Someone behind the 8 ball. Do you want God to be in control AND have us make our own decisions?

I want those dice checked!

 

[Julius_Caesar]

What on earth does a stone coffin tell you about the person it’s meant to contain?

You realize they analyzed the body and it was consistent with a victim of crucifixion aged 50-60 years of age?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

What on earth does a stone coffin tell you about the person it’s meant to contain?

You realize they analyzed the body and it was consistent with a victim of crucifixion aged 50-60 years of age?

I’ll repeat the question. Which was: Do you have documentation that supports the generally accepted view that they (all the apostles) died as martyrs?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Which was: Do you have documentation that supports the generally accepted view that they (all the apostles) died as martyrs?

And I replied: since when do tombs not count as documentation?

Find James’s tomb in Spain.

Peter’s body is in Rome.

 

[TMC]

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?

I have been offline for Christmas, but I can try to answer this now if you are still interested.

You have made an for the historical veracity of the stories of Christianity’s origins by arguing that early Christians would not believe these things, or risk their social standing, and safety, and sometimes even their lives, if they did not have had some basis for believing those stories were factually (historically) accurate. Presumably that historical evidence is now lost to time, or was something not easily preserved. I have pointed out that the same thing would be true for pretty much all religions. I think that is a decent summary of the state of the positions.

You counter my argument by saying that Christianity is just different than other religions. That professing Christianity was more dangerous or extreme than other religions at their start, and that Christianity was spread in a different way than other religions. The problem with that argument is that is simply not true. My basis for that assertion is just basic history. If you look at the history of almost all religions, they are all discredited at the start, and very often are met with violence, shunning and everything else that Christians faced. I pointed to Mormonism as an example, but there are really dozens of examples. All of those adherents to new or different religions faced difficulties and oppression, so they all must have had a similar motivation to early Christians. So, while the martyrdom of the apostles (assuming those stories are true), is certainly some evidence, it is not conclusive or unique evidence. To the contrary, it is similar to the experience of other religions.

At root, your argument is really just that Christianity is just different from other faiths. That is OK to an extent for intra-faith apologetics. But there is no actual factual basis to use that argument outside of the faithful, and without that it is not particularly persuasive.

 

[Zaccheus]

Zaccheus:

Freddy:

Zaccheus:

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.

But the quesiton is whether the Twelve would die for their claims if they had lied about the claims.
If they had lied to begin with then they would know their claims were false.

Do you have documentation that supports the generally accepted view that they died as martyrs?

Is this seirously in doubt?

 

[NormalBeliever]

Again, you seem to be obfuscating the issue. I pointed to specific reasons why Mormonism fails as a comparison and why Christianity couldn’t have survived without evidence. You then point out how all religions had some general element in the category of difficulty, but that does nothing to refute the specific nature of Christianity’s hardness.

It is easily possible for all religions to contain an element of hardness, but that Christiantiy contains so many that it couldn’t have started without any evidence at all.

Keep in mind Christianity is a public religion based on publicly available evidence at the time - not just private revelations to a person that then spreads.

 

[TMC]

Again, you seem to be obfuscating the issue. I pointed to specific reasons why Mormonism fails as a comparison and why Christianity couldn’t have survived without evidence. You then point out how all religions had some general element in the category of difficulty, but that does nothing to refute the specific nature of Christianity’s hardness.

No, sorry, that is just not correct.

You have asserted that Christianity was special, unique among all religions in how it developed, and how its earliest followers were treated. That big of an assertion requires some back up.

You make the bald assertion that Mormonism did not face the same kind of resistance as Christianity, but that argument is pretty hollow. You claim that there was no longer shame associated with a change in religion by the 19th century, but I don’t see any basis for that assertion. There was a large variety of religions in the Roman world in the 1st century, but almost all Americans were Christians in the 19th century. I understand that Romans had some particular issues with the Christian faith at various points, but the same is certainly true for Mormonism (and was true for many other religions at their start.) I don’t see any evidence that a new religion would have faced more difficulties in the 1st century. And I selected Mormonism as my example because we know the facts of its start so well. Those facts show that the founder of Mormonism was killed for his religious assertions, as were many of his followers. They were forced to under take a trek of thousands of miles to find a place they could live in relative peace - and thousands of them died in that effort. All within the first generation of the religion. And, again, we KNOW that happened, because it is within recent recorded history. Surely, by your logic, those followers had some factual basis to believe Smith or they would not have abandoned their livelihoods, extended family, and in some cases given their lives, to follow Smith.

The same is true for virtually every new religion. Every first generation faces discrimination, shunning and even death. Many religions do not survive that process - but all of the major existing religions did. Christianity is not unique in that manner. If you think that it is, you have to support that assertion with more than conclusory statements.

 

[Freddy]

Is this seirously in doubt?

Absolutely. Just check the link I posted a few posts north of this. There aren’t any facts given at all. It’s all ‘tradition has it…’.

Have you investigated this at all?

 

[NormalBeliever]

Umm, no. I never said that there was no longer shame associated with a change in religion. I said that it came into being in a society where shame wasn’t as crucial and important as it was for the ancients - that’s why I said it was a new faith in a new time, not because change in religion was the shameful crux.

I gave specific examples that made Christianity very shameful and ridiculous to the ancients which do not apply to Mormonism, as well as some important differences between them - you just keep generalising and treating all religions as if they were the same and had the same degrees and types of difficulty.

 

[TMC]

Umm, no. I never said that there was no longer shame associated with a change in religion. I said that it came into being in a society where shame wasn’t as crucial and important as it was for the ancients - that’s why I said it was a new faith in a new time, not because change in religion was the shameful crux.

I gave specific examples that made Christianity very shameful and ridiculous to the ancients which do not apply to Mormonism, as well as some important differences between them - you just keep generalising and treating all religions as if they were the same and had the same degrees and types of difficulty.

I am not treating all religions as if they were the same. However, you are making some pretty big claims about what society was like in the first century Roman world, and about how Christianity is different from all other religions. Even stepping away from the examples from any other religion - do you have any basis whatsoever for your claims about Christianity? I really don’t see any validity to them, to be honest.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Well, here are a few resource on that: Handbook of Biblical Social Values, Third Edition - Google Knjige

The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels - Bruce J. Malina - Google Knjige

The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology - Bruce J. Malina - Google Knjige