The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

[boatsnguitars]

Christian clergy and apologists claim that "All the Apostles died instead of recanting their belief in the Resurrection."

Josh McDowell ("More Than A Carpenter, Evidence Demands a Verdict") says,

“Even though they were crucified, stoned, stabbed, dragged, skinned and burned, every last apostle of Jesus proclaimed his resurrection until his dying breath, refusing to recant under pressure from the authorities. Therefore, their testimony is trustworthy and the resurrection is true.”

Josh McDowell.

This is a demonstrable lie.

Sean McDowell, son of Josh McDowell, says:

If you have followed popular–level arguments for the resurrection (or ever heard a sermon on the apostles), you’ve likely heard this argument. Growing up I heard it regularly and found it quite convincing. After all, why would the apostles of Jesus have died for their faith if it weren’t true?

Yet the question was always in the back of my mind — how do we really know they died as martyrs?

(Note, he was told that lie by his father.)

The claim that all of Jesus' disciples were killed for their unwavering belief in the resurrection is a popular and often-repeated narrative. However, this claim is not entirely accurate and is based on a limited understanding of the available historical evidence.

Firstly, it is important to note that the historical record of the disciples' deaths is sparse and often unreliable. Many of the accounts of the disciples' deaths were written years or even centuries after the events they describe, and some of them contain obvious embellishments and inaccuracies.

Furthermore, there is significant debate among historians about the veracity of these accounts. Some historians argue that the disciples' deaths are well-documented and reliable, while others argue that the available evidence is too thin and contradictory to draw any definitive conclusions.

Even assuming that the accounts of the disciples' deaths are accurate, it is not clear that they were all killed specifically because of their belief in the resurrection. Many of the disciples lived and died in relative obscurity, and there is little or no historical record of how or why they died.

For example, we know almost nothing about the deaths of most of the disciples, including James the Less, Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot. The accounts of the deaths of Peter and Paul are somewhat more reliable, but they provide no evidence that these disciples were specifically targeted for their belief in the resurrection.

Moreover, it is worth noting that many religious figures throughout history have been persecuted and even killed for their beliefs. The fact that the disciples were killed for their beliefs does not necessarily make those beliefs true, nor does it provide any evidence for the resurrection itself.

In conclusion, while it is certainly possible that some or all of the disciples were killed for their beliefs, it is far from clear that this is the case. Furthermore, even if the accounts of the disciples' deaths are accurate, they do not provide any evidence for the resurrection itself. Therefore, the claim that the disciples were all killed for their belief in the resurrection is a problematic and oversimplified narrative that should be approached with caution.

1. To what extent do the deaths of the apostles prove the veracity of the resurrection story?
2. Can we trust the accounts of the apostles' deaths as historically accurate, or are they subject to bias and myth-making?
3. Is it possible for someone to be so convinced of a belief that they are willing to die for it, even if the belief is not true?
4. How do we reconcile the apostles' willingness to die for their belief in the resurrection with similar accounts of martyrs in other religions?
5. Do contemporary Christians have a responsibility to question the historical accuracy of their religious texts and teachings, or is faith sufficient?
6. If the clergy is lying so easily about this, what are we to believe about their other claims?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #97]

There is nothing new in your post for me to respond to. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and reading mine.

Hahahaha!

*Why would you be glad to pray for conditions you KNOW are not going to be addressed/cured?*

I have a hunch that, (you too), know that prayer only seems to "work" for physical conditions in which humans can address without the help of any claimed existing external prayer answering agency?

[boatsnguitars]

I don't think 'the apostles lied' is even the argument. It is a ...I was going to say 'strawman' and maybe it is.

I never claimed anyone here was arguing that. The reason some Christians have said the apostles’ death matters is that it would show they didn’t lie about the resurrection. That is the claim being critiqued by this thread. I have agreed that we can’t reasonably say they all died for their message. But we can reasonably say that they were persecuted for their message and this still gets the same end: they didn’t lie about the resurrection.

So all religious people who are persecuted shows that they aren't lying about important aspects of their religion?

You aren't thinking this through. I think you will immediately make caveats for other religions, like, "well, Mormons believed in Smiths claims, but it doesn't support their beliefs in the actual truth of the claims! Only Christians get to claim this!"

In fact, isn't it true, from the fact that billions of people have been persecuted for non-Christian religions, that most people are persecuted for untrue religious claims?

You want to make, not only, an exception for Christianity, but you want their persecution to be directly tied to the Rez claim.

This is pious fraud on your part. Your faith compels you to believe the Rez is different and must be defended at all costs - lest you be truly pitiful.

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't think 'the apostles lied' is even the argument. It is a ...I was going to say 'strawman' and maybe it is.

I never claimed anyone here was arguing that. The reason some Christians have said the apostles’ death matters is that it would show they didn’t lie about the resurrection. That is the claim being critiqued by this thread. I have agreed that we can’t reasonably say they all died for their message. But we can reasonably say that they were persecuted for their message and this still gets the same end: they didn’t lie about the resurrection.

I'm sure I did this before. It isn't all about you. I was addressing the form of the argument commonly presented. 'The disciples could not maintain a lie that they saw Jesus resurrected as they died (martyrdom) rather than recant. Thus the resurrection must be true.

I know you shifted the argument to 'The disciples would not be persecuted fro a lie', which is fair enough as there is some evidence o persecution (Paul) whereas there is no really good evidence that they were martyred.

My counter to that was - yes, I am sure the disciples did believe a resurrection. maybe even preached it. But
(a) I hypothesize that it was not the one in the gospels and

(b) it might not have been the reason they were persecuted - that could have been political.

I pointed out that Jesus was actually executed for sedition, not some supernatural belief. I was not persuaded by your rather weak Pauline passage about the cross offending the Jews or some such.

It really comes down to - the gospel account is not credible (not least because of the contradictions) but Paul's remarks are what he actually said, though his rhetoric of often murky and heftily slanted and the logic, Quotes and conclusions wrong and self - serving.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #102]

No, it’s about the original people supposedly making up the religious lie. No caveats. At least some of the original witnesses to Smiths’ golden plates’ later recanted. That’s why I don’t believe those claims, not because they aren’t Christian. Why don't you believe them? Because they aren't your worldview?

[The Tanager]

I'm sure I did this before. It isn't all about you. I was addressing the form of the argument commonly presented. 'The disciples could not maintain a lie that they saw Jesus resurrected as they died (martyrdom) rather than recant. Thus the resurrection must be true.

You made it about me when you said the “apostles’ lied theory” (yes, you didn't use the quote/reply features to a specific post, but you clearly used my direct language) was maybe a strawman argument. I’m allowed to defend myself against that implied accusation.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #102]

No, it’s about the original people supposedly making up the religious lie. No caveats. At least some of the original witnesses to Smiths’ golden plates’ later recanted. That’s why I don’t believe those claims, not because they aren’t Christian. Why don't you believe them? Because they aren't your worldview?

Why would I believe any of their claims? They are religionists: they lie when they talk.

BTW, Judas was an apostate. But you don't believe him?

Who are the Apostates the Bible talks about in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 2 Timothy 4:1-4?

2 Thessalonians 2:1a, 3 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

Why all the passages about people "falling away" from faith if it wasn't happening?

Matthew 5:27–30 – You heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit-adultery'. But I say to you that everyone looking at a woman so as to desire her already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if your right eye is causing you to fall [skandalizō], tear it out and throw it from you. For it is better for you that one of your body-parts perish and your whole body not be thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand is causing you to fall [skandalizō], cut it off and throw it from you. For it is better for you that one of your body-parts perish and your whole body not go into Gehenna. (Disciples' Literal New Testament or DLNT)
Matthew 13:20–21 – The seed sown on rocky ground is the person who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. But he has no root in himself and does not endure; when trouble or persecution comes because of the word, immediately he falls away [skandalizō]. (NET)
Matthew 13:40–42 – [Jesus is talking to his disciples] Therefore, just as the darnel is collected and burned up with fire, so it will be at the conclusion of the age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will collect out of His kingdom all the causes-of-falling [skandalon] and the ones doing lawlessness. And they will throw them into the furnace of fire. In that place, there will be the weeping and the grinding of teeth. (DLNT)[24]
Matthew 18:6–9 – [Jesus is talking to his disciples] But whoever causes one of these little ones believing in Me to fall [skandalizō] – it would be better for him that a donkey’s millstone be hung around his neck and he be sunk in the deep part of the sea. Woe to the world because of the causes-of-falling [skandalon]. For it is a necessity that causes-of-falling [skandalon] should come; nevertheless, woe to the person through whom the cause-of-falling [skandalon] comes. But if your hand or your foot is causing you to fall [skandalizō], cut it off and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter into life crippled or lame than to be thrown into the eternal fire having two hands or two feet. And if your eye is causing you to fall [skandalizō], tear it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter into life one-eyed than to be thrown into the Gehenna of fire having two eyes. (DLNT)[25]
Matthew 24:4, 9–10, 13 – And Jesus answered them [his disciples], See that no one leads you astray… . They will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will fall away [skandalizō] and betray one another and hate one another… . But the one who endures to the end will be saved. (ESV)
Mark 4:16–17 – These are the ones sown on rocky ground: As soon as they hear the word, they receive it with joy. But they have no root in themselves and do not endure. Then, when trouble or persecution comes because of the word, immediately they fall away [skandalizō]. (NET)
Mark 9:42–48 – [Jesus is talking to his disciples] And whoever causes one of these little ones believing in Me to fall [skandalizō] – it would be better for him if instead a donkey's millstone were lying around his neck, and he had been thrown into the sea.[26] And if your hand should be causing you to fall [skandalizō], cut it off. It is better that you enter into life crippled than go into Gehenna having two hands – into the inextinguishable fire. And if your foot should be causing you to fall [skandalizō], cut it off. It is better that you enter into life lame than be thrown into Gehenna having two feet. And if your eye should be causing you to fall [skandalizō], throw it out. It is better that you enter into the kingdom of God one-eyed than be thrown into Gehenna having two eyes – where their worm does not come to an end, and the fire is not quenched. (DLNT)[27]
Luke 17:1–2 – And He said to His disciples, "It is impossible that the causes-of-falling [skandalon] should not come. Nevertheless, woe to the one through whom they come. It would be better for him if a mill’s stone were lying-around his neck and he had been thrown-off into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to fall [skandalizō]." (DLNT)
John 15:18, 20, 27, 16:1 – [Jesus is talking to his disciples] If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you… . Remember the word that I said to you: A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. … And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away [skandalizō]. (ESV)
Romans 14:13–15, 20 – Therefore let us no longer be judging one another. But rather judge this: not to be placing an opportunity for stumbling or a cause-of-falling [skandalon] for the brother. (I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is defiled in itself, except to the one considering anything to be defiled – to that one it is defiled). For if your brother is grieved because of food, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not be destroying with your food that one for whom Christ died. … Do not be tearing-down the work of God for the sake of food. (DLNT)[28]
Romans 16:17–18 – Now I urge you, brothers, to be watching-out-for the ones producing the dissensions and the causes-of-falling [skandalon] contrary to the teaching which you learned, and be turning away from them. For such ones are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own stomach. And by smooth-talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the guileless ones. (DLNT)
1 Corinthians 8:9–13 – But be watching-out that this right of yours does not somehow become an opportunity-for-stumbling to the weak ones. For if someone sees you, the one having knowledge, reclining [to eat] in an idol-temple, will not his conscience, being weak, be built-up so as to eat the foods-sacrificed-to-idols? For the one being weak is being destroyed by your knowledge – the brother for the sake of whom Christ died! And in this manner sinning against the brothers and striking their conscience while being weak, you are sinning against Christ. For-this-very-reason, if food causes my brother to fall [skandalizō], I will never eat meats, ever – in-order-that I may not cause my brother to fall [skandalizō]. (DLNT)
1 John 2:9–11 – The one claiming to be in the light and hating his brother is in the darkness until now. The one loving his brother is abiding in the light, and there is no cause-of-falling [skandalon] in him. But the one hating his brother is in the darkness, and is walking in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness blinded his eyes. (DLNT)
Revelation 2:14 – [Jesus is talking to the church in Pergamum] But I have a few things against you, because you have there ones holding on to the teaching of Balaam, who was teaching Balak to put a cause-of-falling [skandalon] before the sons of Israel to eat foods sacrificed to idols and to commit sexual-immorality. (DLNT)[29]

2 Now we request you, brothers, with regard to the coming[1] of our Lord Jesus Christ … 3 Let no one deceive[2] you in any way, for it will not come unless the apostasy[3] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

On this text, New Testament scholar Knute Larson writes, “Before that great day comes, Paul declared, the rebellion must occur. The word used here is apostasia or apostasy. Before the day of the Lord, there will be a great denial, a deliberate turning away by those who profess to belong to Christ. It will be a rebellion. Having once allied themselves with Christ, they will abandon him. Within the recognized church there will come a time when people will forsake their faith. Throughout history, there have been defections from the faith. But the apostasy about which he wrote to the Thessalonians would be of greater magnitude and would signal the coming of the end.” (Larson 2000, 105)

Seems many who claim to be Christian will stop believing. You?

The fact is, you've let the Bible be your only source, and swallowed your preachers claims that there were no apostates, in the apostles or otherwise.

You simply presume the best for Christianity. Also, look up Jewish sources and see how many Christians became Jews.

Even if all apostles didn't recant, that proves nothing. Remember, 5,000 allegedly saw Jesus risen - but some didn't believe, and many - clearly - left the faith after finding it yet another cult. But that's not the story you want to hear.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm sure I did this before. It isn't all about you. I was addressing the form of the argument commonly presented. 'The disciples could not maintain a lie that they saw Jesus resurrected as they died (martyrdom) rather than recant. Thus the resurrection must be true.

You made it about me when you said the “apostles’ lied theory” (yes, you didn't use the quote/reply features to a specific post, but you clearly used my direct language) was maybe a strawman argument. I’m allowed to defend myself against that implied accusation.

Yes, it is all about you if you are strawmanning by using a different argument - the apostlre were persecuted for not denying the resurrection, which is a different argument and (as I said) they may have been persecuted for some other reason. In fact I think they were 'persecuted' for political reasons. But that's just my theory.

It isn't all about you when it comes to the 'the apostles would not die for a lie' apologetic, in fact not if you shift to the different argument, though it's used to do the same job. Have the apostles be 'persecuted' rather than say they did not see Jesus alive after he'd died.

As we know, martyrs can die for what Christians would consider a false belief. They can certainly put up with 'persecution' for it. But I surely get that dying rather that deny resurrection is not really validated or verified, while 'persecution' surely is. I do get that. In fact the argument might be the same. For the disciples/apostles, it was more for political reasons they were persecuted and perhaps killed. Paul was politically safe. He was on the Roman side and I suspect would have sacrificed to the Imperial cult if required to. I suspect that this was one reason he wanted to replace The Law with Jesus, not just for Gentiles but for himself, too.

Point is he was persecuted for preaching against the Law, not for political reasons. So there are lot of sidelines and different approaches to this 'die for a lie' apologetic. And as a general apologetic or some theory of your own, I don't think it works, any more that your trying to play the 'personal accusations' card.

[The Tanager]

BTW, Judas was an apostate. But you don't believe him?

What did Judas say that I am not believing here in this thread?

Who are the Apostates the Bible talks about in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 2 Timothy 4:1-4?

2 Thessalonians 2:1a, 3 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

Why all the passages about people "falling away" from faith if it wasn't happening?

Where is the evidence that these were the apostles, the ones that would have had to be the ones that supposedly made up the lie? No one is claiming Christians didn’t fall away. It’s about the ones who would have made the initial lie.

Even if all apostles didn't recant, that proves nothing.

I never said the apostles not recanting proves the resurrection happened; I claimed it showed they didn’t make up the lie of a resurrection.

Remember, 5,000 allegedly saw Jesus risen - but some didn't believe, and many - clearly - left the faith after finding it yet another cult. But that's not the story you want to hear.

Do you mean the 500 in 1 Cor 15? Where does it say some of those didn’t believe or left the faith?

[The Tanager]

Yes, it is all about you if you are strawmanning by using a different argument - the apostlre were persecuted for not denying the resurrection, which is a different argument and (as I said) they may have been persecuted for some other reason. In fact I think they were 'persecuted' for political reasons. But that's just my theory.

How is it strawmanning when I explicitly agreed, multiple times, that the argument you are critiquing isn’t a good one and then say, but here is a stronger version of that same kind of argument for people to be aware of and talk about if they wanted to? As to your critiques on that in the last post, they are just re-stating what you’ve already said and what I’ve already responded to, so I won’t re-state my part of that discussion.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, it is all about you if you are strawmanning by using a different argument - the apostlre were persecuted for not denying the resurrection, which is a different argument and (as I said) they may have been persecuted for some other reason. In fact I think they were 'persecuted' for political reasons. But that's just my theory.

How is it strawmanning when I explicitly agreed, multiple times, that the argument you are critiquing isn’t a good one and then say, but here is a stronger version of that same kind of argument for people to be aware of and talk about if they wanted to? As to your critiques on that in the last post, they are just re-stating what you’ve already said and what I’ve already responded to, so I won’t re-state my part of that discussion.

Then isn't that 'steelmanning' which is a kind of strawmanning? However I don't think it is doing your case any good to make this about taking personal miff as some supposed accusations of mine. The point is that the argument is a bit the same and also different or the same apologetic but on a stronger basis. That was the basis of my remark about shifting the goalposts. But it is a legitimate shift even though it bases the case on firmer mentions of persecutions.

The point being that the martyrdom stories are without merit and the death of James in Acts even if we credit it - the motive might have been political, not because he would not deny the resurrection.

Moreover the resurrection as in the gospels - not the I Cor resurrection which looks visionary (in the head) and thus spiritual, not as in the gospels- is a more credible thing they believed than the contradictory gospel accounts.

I also argue that the persecution was (on Roman record) political, not religious. I doubt that even the Sadducees would have cared about the claim of a resurrection any more than the claim of Messianism. I suggest that it is more as a quisling government for the Romans that the Sadducees persecuted Jesus' disciples.

So perhaps we can put aside the carefully calculated exhibitions of miff, making observations about the argument into some claim of a personal attack. As always. it is not about the individual but the rationale of the argument. Maybe I should make the argument always 3rd person in such argument.

Which is that die for a lie fails - as you agreed. but persecuted for a lie fails also even though it is based on the Bible, not early church tall stories.