Weakest Apologetics Argument

[Randy_Carson]

This is just an opinion…okay, my opinion, but it seems to me that one argument Christians often use when trying to make the case for Christianity is:

If ___________ isn’t true, then why were so many people willing to die as martyrs for their belief that it was true?

You can insert anything you want in the blank: the resurrection, the historical Jesus, whatever.

My point is this: sometimes even intelligent, well-meaning people do stupid things for the wrong reasons. Consequently, non-believers will not be impressed or swayed by the idea that people were willing to endure martyrdom in the hope of attaining heaven in the afterlife.

So, is there more to this argument than I realize? Or are the martyrs of the early Church really just a topic for discussion among those who already believe?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

This is just an opinion…okay, my opinion, but it seems to me that one argument Christians often use when trying to make the case for Christianity is:

If ___________ isn’t true, then why were so many people willing to die as martyrs for their belief that it was true?

Either you heard it wrong or it was said wrong.

I find it most compelling that a person will not willingly give up their life for something that they KNOW is a lie. Why would they? What would they have to gain? Death? If they know that, say, the resurrection is a lie, what would they hope to gain, when simple renunciation would prevent it?

Of course, this only applies to those who absolutely KNOW whether, say, the resurrection is true. The Apostles, certainly, would KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, whether the man they traveled with for years and was crucified was indeed resurrected. Either they saw, conversed, and ate with Him or they didn’t. Period.

Other disciples, same thing.

Now, other martyrs are a witness, certainly (that’s what the word means). But the ones who know for certain are a special class, and in and of themselves, by virtue of their martyrdom when all they had to do was renounce their claims, I find quite nigh to proof.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is just an opinion…okay, my opinion, but it seems to me that one argument Christians often use when trying to make the case for Christianity is:

If ___________ isn’t true, then why were so many people willing to die as martyrs for their belief that it was true?

You can insert anything you want in the blank: the resurrection, the historical Jesus, whatever.

My point is this: sometimes even intelligent, well-meaning people do stupid things for the wrong reasons. Consequently, non-believers will not be impressed or swayed by the idea that people were willing to endure martyrdom in the hope of attaining heaven in the afterlife.

So, is there more to this argument than I realize? Or are the martyrs of the early Church really just a topic for discussion among those who already believe?

Do you know another religion where people over and over were killed when all they had to say was no Jesus did not raise from the dead? Or something similar?

I think it is not proof but a testament that they believed this so firmly they were willing to die for it. I mean if they made it up then they are idiots.

 

[Todd977]

The argument really only works for the apostles who had first-hand knowledge of whether or not Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose from the dead. It is unreasonable to think that they would have been willing to suffer a torturous martyrdom for something they knew as a lie.

 

[sacredheart777]

This is just an opinion…okay, my opinion, but it seems to me that one argument Christians often use when trying to make the case for Christianity is:

If ___________ isn’t true, then why were so many people willing to die as martyrs for their belief that it was true?

You can insert anything you want in the blank: the resurrection, the historical Jesus, whatever.

My point is this: sometimes even intelligent, well-meaning people do stupid things for the wrong reasons. Consequently, non-believers will not be impressed or swayed by the idea that people were willing to endure martyrdom in the hope of attaining heaven in the afterlife.

So, is there more to this argument than I realize? Or are the martyrs of the early Church really just a topic for discussion among those who already believe?

Your opinion seems to be derived from the opinion of some ‘Christians’ when trying to make sense of Christianity. Thus that leads to question the content of faith which is an act of ‘doubt’ and of those…
The truth is, being martyr is through the grace from God to endure suffering and death for the love of God. Read the lives of some martyrs and your opinion will be enlightened. Some are very interesting that even non-believers converted to Christianity.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

The argument works better if it is pointed out that the Apostles and early Christians had literally nothing to gain for their martyrdom.

When someone lies about something, and is willing to risk death over it, they usually have something to gain. Money, power, acclaim. Whatever. But the disciples of Christ, the eye-witnesses, literally gave away everything they had, left their homelands, were persecuted, tormented, and tortured, and went through this joyfully. What, exactly, was going through their heads, if they were zealously defending a lie? They literally had nothing to gain (maybe except fame for the Apostles, but what of their presbyters, deacons, and laymen that no one knew?). It just doesn’t add up.

One could point to Islam, but then we have a leadership with lots to gain (even Muhammad himself gained territory and wealth). We really have no other faith in which the very eyewitnesses of their leader went to grizzly deaths with no reward (no patriotism, no honor, no money, no power, nothing at all), and not for the sake of an ideal or philosophy that the leader preached, but for the leader himself (Who was already gone)!

This, in addition to the Gospels being written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses (rare in the ancient world, especially for a poor Jewish Rabbi), make a compelling case to me that there was at least a very remarkable man named Jesus, that His followers believed He was God, and that they believed so much that they were willing to give everything for Him.

Add the most important element (grace), and I am firmly a believer

 

[ServantPD]

This is just an opinion…okay, my opinion, but it seems to me that one argument Christians often use when trying to make the case for Christianity is:

If ___________ isn’t true, then why were so many people willing to die as martyrs for their belief that it was true?

You can insert anything you want in the blank: the resurrection, the historical Jesus, whatever.

My point is this: sometimes even intelligent, well-meaning people do stupid things for the wrong reasons. Consequently, non-believers will not be impressed or swayed by the idea that people were willing to endure martyrdom in the hope of attaining heaven in the afterlife.

So, is there more to this argument than I realize? Or are the martyrs of the early Church really just a topic for discussion among those who already believe?

While you can say that about the later disciples of the Apostles, you certainly can’t say that about the Apostles themselves, or the other eyewitnesses of the crucifixion that believed in Jesus’s resurrection. The huge leap that is required to drop the Jewish incredulity of the resurrection of the dead to just believe that Jesus was still alive needs to be accounted for.

I honestly do bring this argument regularly, because it really draws back to the point where all of this started, and any similar case was a mere repetition of this one. The power to move a person’s life up to the point of losing it is a very big one, and since they were far from feeling religiously obliged to do it by Judaism, you can sense the change these men went through. It wasn’t about having hope of attaining heaven, it was about dying for the truth that the Son of God told them. Dying for truth has been seen throughout history as a very noble act, and I think that at least regarding the earliest Christians, the argument of bringing their lives to an end for Jesus has quite some sway, especially when discussing this personally and not on the internet. But hey, it’s just my opinion!

 

[Barzillai]

My point is this: sometimes even intelligent, well-meaning people do stupid things for the wrong reasons. Consequently, non-believers will not be impressed or swayed by the idea that people were willing to endure martyrdom in the hope of attaining heaven in the afterlife.

Randy: I was raised and educated as an atheist – lived as one until I was about 37 years old. For me during those years of darkness the argument you described was in the category of the weakest arguments to my atheist mind. So I would agree with you, but there are so many ways to God and so many strange ways into the Catholic church it’s hard to say it will never have any value – and I know that is not your main point. But for me your comment is exactly correct and I was never impressed with that argument. When I heard that argument from someone I thought “I just need to be polite and end the conversation as quickly as possible.”

 

[ClearWater]

Well, one difference is that in a lot of other faiths, it was private revelation, no witnesses. With Christianity, ALL the eye witnesses underwent persecution. Even Judas witnessed in his own way! Some were tortured and martyred.

 

[TimothyH]

I think the weakest apologetic argument is, “He is God. He can do whatever he wants.”

I want to say, “Well, that makes me God!!!”

-Tim-

 

[DavidFilmer]

It’s actually a rather strong argument.

All eleven Apostles claimed to be firsthand witnesses. They preached the Gospel in the city of Jerusalem only a couple of days after the Crucifixion, among people who all knew who Jesus was - even the Jewish king, Herod, knew about Jesus! If any portion of the Apostles’ story was fabricated, there would have likely been someone in the crowd to call them out on it.

The Apostles went into hiding after their leader had been tortured and killed, fearing the same fate (and rightfully so). This would be a normal reaction. I would do the same thing.

Then, suddenly, they’re standing out in the streets preaching about Jesus? And they all devote the rest of their lives to this preaching, and they are all tortured and killed because of it? (and I’m counting John as well - being abandoned on a barren rock to die of exposure is a type of torture and execution).

That’s not how people act without a really profound reason. If only one person claimed to have firsthand experience, and people believed him and were willing to die, we might dismiss that situation as easily as Joseph Smith (the guy who invented the Mormon religion), whose followers believed his private revelation and were willing to die with him (some did). But those followers were duped - they never claimed to be firsthand witnesses. Eleven people (100% of the Apostles) were either all crazy liars with a death wish, or something really happened.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

It’s actually a rather strong argument.

All eleven Apostles claimed to be firsthand witnesses. They preached the Gospel in the city of Jerusalem only a couple of days after the Crucifixion, among people who all knew who Jesus was - even the Jewish king, Herod, knew about Jesus! If any portion of the Apostles’ story was fabricated, there would have likely been someone in the crowd to call them out on it.

The Apostles went into hiding after their leader had been tortured and killed, fearing the same fate (and rightfully so). This would be a normal reaction. I would do the same thing.

Then, suddenly, they’re standing out in the streets preaching about Jesus? And they all devote the rest of their lives to this preaching, and they are all tortured and killed because of it? (and I’m counting John as well - being abandoned on a barren rock to die of exposure is a type of torture and execution).

That’s not how people act without a really profound reason. If only one person claimed to have firsthand experience, and people believed him and were willing to die, we might dismiss that situation as easily as Joseph Smith (the guy who invented the Mormon religion), whose followers believed his private revelation and were willing to die with him (some did). But those followers were duped - they never claimed to be firsthand witnesses. Eleven people (100% of the Apostles) were either all crazy liars with a death wish, or something really happened.

Being willing to die is a testimony to a person’s faith, but it isn’t a proof of The Faith necessarily. Fanatical Muslims are willing to die by the hundreds to fight the infidel, does that mean Islam is the true Faith? How many Japanese soldiers conducted suicide attacks in World War II in the name of their country and Emperor? Does that mean Shinto is right?

The Martyrs are a powerful witness, very powerful. But reducing it to an abstract notion of “dying for your beliefs” and body count numbers can have the opposite effect in a discussion.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Being willing to die is a testimony to a person’s faith, but it isn’t a proof of The Faith necessarily. Fanatical Muslims are willing to die by the hundreds to fight the infidel, does that mean Islam is the true Faith? How many Japanese soldiers conducted suicide attacks in World War II in the name of their country and Emperor? Does that mean Shinto is right?

The Martyrs are a powerful witness, very powerful. But reducing it to an abstract notion of “dying for your beliefs” and body count numbers can have the opposite effect in a discussion.

This misses the point of the Apostles themselves.

I agree with you regarding later martyrs.

But for 11 guys who claimed something outrageous to all keep that claim through persecution and death means they were all insane or all right about what they saw.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Being willing to die is a testimony to a person’s faith, but it isn’t a proof of The Faith necessarily. Fanatical Muslims are willing to die by the hundreds to fight the infidel, does that mean Islam is the true Faith?

I thought I addressed that. Joseph Smith invented the Mormon religion. He had many supporters, some of whom died on his behalf. But NONE of his supporters claimed to have witnessed the “golden tablets” which were delivered (or, was it dictated?) to Smith, or to have ever even seen them. They all accepted Smith’s testimony.

NO Muslim has ever claimed to have witnessed firsthand the revelation that Muhammad claims to have received.

Followers of Smith and Muhammad (to cite two opposite extremes) have been willing to fight and die for their confidence in the person who invented their religion. Both believe that their founder received a divine revelation from God.

In both cases, the followers accepted the testimony of ONE person, who was not divine, but only a prophet. They believed that ONE person.

The Apostles were not like that. They accepted the testimony of ONE person who claimed to be God incarnate. Whom they ALL (100%) said (from firsthand experience) rose from the dead and personally appeared to them, and ate with them, and taught them for a long time, before they ALL saw him ascend into the sky.

They ALL died in nasty ways because of their teaching. They ALL knew that their teaching would probably result in their death (as it resulted in the death of their founder, Jesus).

This is unprecedented in the history of religion. It has NEVER happened in any other religion.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I thought I addressed that. Joseph Smith invented the Mormon religion. He had many supporters, some of whom died on his behalf. But NONE of his supporters claimed to have witnessed the “golden tablets” which were delivered (or, was it dictated?) to Smith, or to have ever even seen them. They all accepted Smith’s testimony.

NO Muslim has ever claimed to have witnessed firsthand the revelation that Muhammad claims to have received.

Followers of Smith and Muhammad (to cite two opposite extremes) have been willing to fight and die for their confidence in the person who invented their religion. Both believe that their founder received a divine revelation from God.

In both cases, the followers accepted the testimony of ONE person, who was not divine, but only a prophet. They believed that ONE person.

The Apostles were not like that. They accepted the testimony of ONE person who claimed to be God incarnate. Whom they ALL (100%) said (from firsthand experience) rose from the dead and personally appeared to them, and ate with them, and taught them for a long time, before they ALL saw him ascend into the sky.

They ALL died in nasty ways because of their teaching. They ALL knew that their teaching would probably result in their death (as it resulted in the death of their founder, Jesus).

This is unprecedented in the history of religion. It has NEVER happened in any other religion.

You won’t hear me argue against that. My whole point is that trying to “argue” in favor of Christianity in this way is perilous.

An Elder once said that the best answer to Atheism is the Saints, including the ones who live today.

A Christian Life well lived renders all of these other points superfluous.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Either you heard it wrong or it was said wrong.

I find it most compelling that a person will not willingly give up their life for something that they KNOW is a lie. Why would they? What would they have to gain? Death? If they know that, say, the resurrection is a lie, what would they hope to gain, when simple renunciation would prevent it?

Of course, this only applies to those who absolutely KNOW whether, say, the resurrection is true. The Apostles, certainly, would KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, whether the man they traveled with for years and was crucified was indeed resurrected. Either they saw, conversed, and ate with Him or they didn’t. Period.

Other disciples, same thing.

Now, other martyrs are a witness, certainly (that’s what the word means). But the ones who know for certain are a special class, and in and of themselves, by virtue of their martyrdom when all they had to do was renounce their claims, I find quite nigh to proof.

A nice distinction regarding the Apostles. Thank you.

As for the other martyrs who were not eye-witnesses, this is less sure because they were motivated by the desire for a reward of heaven. This is what atheists are quick to seize on.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do you know another religion where people over and over were killed when all they had to say was no Jesus did not raise from the dead? Or something similar?

No, Christianity is the only one which would fit that description.

I think it is not proof but a testament that they believed this so firmly they were willing to die for it. I mean if they made it up then they are idiots.

True.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy: I was raised and educated as an atheist – lived as one until I was about 37 years old. For me during those years of darkness the argument you described was in the category of the weakest arguments to my atheist mind. So I would agree with you, but there are so many ways to God and so many strange ways into the Catholic church it’s hard to say it will never have any value – and I know that is not your main point. But for me your comment is exactly correct and I was never impressed with that argument. When I heard that argument from someone I thought “I just need to be polite and end the conversation as quickly as possible.”

Thank you.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The argument works better if it is pointed out that the Apostles and early Christians had literally nothing to gain for their martyrdom.

When someone lies about something, and is willing to risk death over it, they usually have something to gain. Money, power, acclaim. Whatever. But the disciples of Christ, the eye-witnesses, literally gave away everything they had, left their homelands, were persecuted, tormented, and tortured, and went through this joyfully. What, exactly, was going through their heads, if they were zealously defending a lie? They literally had nothing to gain (maybe except fame for the Apostles, but what of their presbyters, deacons, and laymen that no one knew?). It just doesn’t add up.

Well, there is the promise of eternal bliss with God and the Saints. So, while I agree with you, there is one further step that needs to be expounded.

That promise of eternal bliss is something that many have to believe. The Apostles (and many other disciples), however, KNEW for sure, one way or the other, whether this promise was True. They KNEW whether Jesus’ was resurrected or not, not just on others’ testimony, but by first-hand experiental knowledge.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Being willing to die is a testimony to a person’s faith, but it isn’t a proof of The Faith necessarily.

Yes. But people who absolutely knew whether or not that Faith was True, and still showed that they were willing to die for it, militates strongly for its veracity.