The martyred disciples

[tentex25]

10 of the disciples were martyred for Jesus. The 10 of them were tortured and killed for what they believed in, never denouncing the name of Jesus. I recently spoke to a professor at my university. When he criticized Christianity and how the disciples only claimed Jesus to be holy...I brought up the fact that 10 of them willingly died for His name and what believed in. The professor dismissed my argument and said that people in many religions had been martyrd similarly. I would like this topic to be a discussion on the differences and similarities to martyrs of other religions. I just don't think I can find any of the same magnitude as I have of the disciples.

[Goose]

OK, you're willing to concede that Christians have been "martyred for Jesus", that Jesus being the resurrected one, yes? This includes the disciples, yes? If not, why would you exclude them when the evidence seems to suggests they were martyred?

Again, what evidence?

We are starting to go in circles now. We've been over the evidence, the back drop, and the arguments.
I fear we have arrived here:
http://www.bookshaker.com/images/backpage-happy.jpg

For James' death we don't know many details.

But we have enough to establish he was a martyr. We've been over this too and why your request for more "details" is unwarrented.

For Peter's death we have political elements alongside tall-tale absurdities.

Been over this as well. We also have late first century evidence for Peter and Paul's martyrdom in 1 Clement. Why does this continue to escape you?

Do we know anything about the deaths of James, son of Alphaeus? Thaddeus? Simon the Zealot? The short answer is no. But they are lumped in with statements like, "10 of the 12 were tortured and killed."

That depends. Originally, I was only contending that we have early evidence for the deaths and martyrdoms of the disciples Peter and James (the brother of John). Then use this as evidence for the argument that the disciples were at least WILLING to die for their faith. Not that the other disciples actually DID die as a martyr. Because this thread was about the 12 disciples and not all the possible witnesses to the resurrection I won't pursue the early evidence we have for the martyrdoms of key players such as Paul and James the brother of Jesus. I'll let those go for now to stay on topic. (By early I mean around the close of the 1st century at the latest. With that we can reasonably argue it was at least written during the lifetime of some of the witnesses to the resurrection and events in question).

But, on further consideration, because you have brought the Acts of Peter (and Hegesippus for James) into the picture to support your argument that Peter's death was "clearly political" and not a martyrdom, I'm assuming you must consider late questionable writings with what you've called "tall-tale absurdities" acceptable. This, then, opens the door for us to bring in a wealth of late material even if they happen to contain "tall-tale absurdities" to support the martyrdoms of more of the other 10 disciples, if not all of them. That's only fair is it not? So I think with that we are now on solid grounds to pursue later evidence that supports the traditional martyrdom of the disciples. In short, you given me permission to use "questionable" sources to show other disciples were martyred. With your apparent criteria of 1)Late writings (later than the lifetime of any witnesses to the events) and 2)Writings that contain "tall-tale absurdities", why would you question the Bible or any other writing? Seems like a double standard here.

Christian martyrs are not more "special" in the sense that they sacrificed more or should be put on a higher pedestal than other martyrs per se.

Tentex25 disagrees with you, as per his original post. Perhaps you should be arguing with him.

I guess it all depends on what tentex25 meant by "magnitude."

I'm always leery of the "would've" statements, ie, "Paul would've known all the details of Jesus' life because he lived in Palestine at the time." "Would've" statements are too often based on speculation, made by people desperate to support their own case. I'm all too familiar with them because I catch myself making them all the time.

However, we can use evidence and logic to build a cogent argument that helps us arrive at a reasonably acceptable conclusion.

So when I see someone saying, "The disciples would've never preached about Jesus under the threat of persecution unless they knew it was all true," I question that idea.

Oh, I thought you were trying to prove it to be false. If all you want to do is question it, that's fine by me. Question away, my friend.

As I said over and over, I have no doubt that followers of Christ have been persecuted and killed for their beliefs. What I question is the idea that the disciples would've not done what they did for a lie (I've never hinted that any of them were wilfully lying, or trying to pull a con).

So, you are saying they would have willingly died for what they knew to be a lie? Is that correct? If so, would you die for a lie? Or are you hinting at something like the hallucination theory. I'm not following you here.

Their strength lies in the fact they would have been in a position to KNOW if they were being persecuted or dying for a lie.

Yes. You are correct. My grammar was poor. I should have said:

Their strength lies in the fact they WERE in a position to KNOW if they were being persecuted or dying for a lie.

The disciples Christianity would encompass a belief in the risen Jesus, derived from their belief that they witnessed Jesus' resurrected person. Let me put it this way. Why do you think the disciples were running around professing a risen Jesus in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus was crucified for blasphemy? Right under the noses of the people that killed Christ? Kind of stupid, don't you think? Unless, they actually believed they witnessed a resurrected Christ. We need only show that they were persecuted for their faith, that faith is dependant upon a resurrected Christ, it's part of the package. The text is very clear they were persecuted for their faith, their faith was based upon the belief in a resurrected Jesus, therefore they were also persecuted for believing in a resurrected Jesus. If they were killed because of that faith, it is martyrdom. Therefore they would have also been martyred for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

What is wrong with the above statement? If my logic is unsound, tell me why. It is an intellectually honest statement in that it's based around the disciples (and other witnesses) belief. Why is that a problem? I'm not begging the question by assuming that Jesus' resurrection was a proven fact. I could be MUCH more dogmatic if you prefer. What you need to do, is come up with a plausible reason to explain that belief.

Hey, if we wanted to focus only the ancient texts that scholars think are reliable, then we have even less to work with.

What I'd like to know is, what is YOUR criteria for what constitutes a reliable text? Can you come up with a criteria that doesn't fail most ancient documents and thus would cause us to throw most of the history text books in the trash?

Without the Acts of Peter, we have no clue how Peter died,

No clue, huh? Except for that piece of evidence from the late 1st Century you don't seem to want to acknowledge, 1 Clement. Should I quote it again?

so we can't argue that because Peter was martyred AND he claimed to be an eyewitness, therefore he was martyred BECAUSE he claimed to be an eyewitness, therefore ALL eyewitnesses were martyred. If you want to stick with only reliable, authority-approved texts, be my guest.

What "authority" is going to do the approving?

In all of the New Testament, we have one line about James being beheaded. Not much to work on, really.

But it is enough for our purposes here to establish he was persecuted and martyred.

But if you want to assert "other writings tell us," then don't be surprised if A) I also assert that those same writings tell a different story,

You're free to interpret texts as you wish.

and B) the writings are questionable.

This is why we need a criteria BEFORE we start. Otherwise, we have the case where one uses a source to support an argument and then claims another source that refutes the argument is unreliable. When in reality the second text is no less reliable by the same criteria that would have passed the first text. Categorical fallacy!

Only Christians believe Christianity is a legitimate branch of Judaism (indeed, the superior heir of Judaism). I don't know that any Orthodox Jew would consider you one of their own.

I can live with that.

Cop-out. Give me your BEST reason the disciples changed their behaviour after the alleged appearances of the resurrected Jesus.

Because they believed that their hero, despite dying an ignomius criminal's death, is alive in heaven and that anyone who subscribes to that theory will soon join him. Belief is a powerful thing, enough to change lives.

That's a repeat of what you said before which is basically they believed so they changed, people change. Yes, we know that people change. But why such a dramatic change? And the subsequent action of them? People don't dramatically change for no reason. They were broken hearted, fearful, and unorganised. What transformed them into the people we see in Acts and other writings, that went out and preached the resurrection of Jesus and proclaimed Him as the Christ, despite the potential consequences? What event took place to be the catalyst for this behaviour?

The real question is not whether they initially doubted, but whether they at some point believed. The text seems to indicate they did.

I don't see that.

Read the book of Acts.

Peter called Jesus "The Christ" long before the resurrection. Why do you have the belief that no one would ever call Jesus the Christ until after they physically saw him resurrected?

Yes that is true. And Peter also apparently denied that he even knew Jesus three times BEFORE the crucificion/resurrection. He obviously wasn't that convinced, yet. What changed Peter's mind? It appears Peter was only saying it before the crucifixion and believed differently after. So much so that he maintained that belief despite the threat of persecution and death. Now, why do think that is?

So it comes down to, "The disciples did . . . something . . . and the only reason they did so is because of some supernatural event that violates the laws of physics.

Why can't God violate the laws of what we know about physics?

Therefore, we must trust that what was reported that they observed is accurate and we must believe the same things."

There is no "must." You can believe or not.

In my view, the evidence is insufficient to make these leaps of faith. People believe strange things all the time, and the people of first-century Palestine was notorious for the lack of scepticism.

This assertion seems to be unfounded. It is contradicted by the very evidence you mentioned earlier in Matthew ch 28 in which some did not believe. Remember doubting Thomas? It seems they had the right amount of healthy scepticism combined with an open mind. Apparently, average 1st century Jews were not the gullible bumpkins you and Carrier would like us to believe

[Goose]

I am not in a peanut gallery so I couldn't tell you but I will donate to JamesBrown because he has bothered to argue with a peanut. Of course no one is yapping, we are writing. But as near as I can see you can’t even get your story right. I also donated to acamp1 because he had a point.

Cathar, I've got a busy couple of days ahead, so I'll get to your post as soon as possible. Give me a day or two to sift through it.

Don't I get any tokens?

[JamesBrown]

But we have enough to establish he was a martyr. We've been over this too and why your request for more "details" is unwarrented.

Are we still arguing over the definition of martyr? That's your ax to grind. To die a violent death does not ipso facto make one a martyr, not even if the two parties are of opposing religions. I'll concede that James was martyred if you'll drop the notion that that must mean that all the disciples were martyred.

I'll also concede over the use of sources. Here's why I brought up works like Acts of Peter:

All through the Protestant New Testament, we hear of exactly one disciple being put to a violent death--and that's James. Beyond that, the majority of the disciples are not even mentioned by name, let alone any details of their deaths. But it is apologists who trumpet, "All the disciples were tortured and killed." When asked for their sources, apologists haul out apocryphal works like the Gnostic Acts of Peter. They say, "See? Peter was crucified upside down; doesn't that make you want to believe?"

Now skeptics notice that these attested works are also filled with fantastical elements that push them into absurdity. But if we assume (for the sake of argument) they are nothing but unbiased facts, these works also show that, say, political factors were involved in Peter's death, for example. This tends to tarnish the image of the meek, long-suffering penitent. (Perhaps if Peter would have urged Xanthippa to return to her husband as Jesus would have wanted he wouldn't have been put to death. But that's idle speculation.)

Now apologists are reluctant to mention these other elements to the faithful. I attended church for over thirty years and often was told of Peter's death, but not once was it mentioned that he was up to something with another man's wife or that he chatted with dogs. No, all I was told was that the disciples were all martyred and let's praise Jesus.

Now if the Council of Nicea passed on these apocryphal works as dubious or outright frauds, why should we be considering them? I'll tell you why, because they make the apologist's case, never mind the problems with them. But if apologists want to rely on them, then skeptics will point out the problems.

So your criticisms of me using these works is unfounded. I may have been the first person to mention the Acts of Peter in this thread but I'm not the first to use it in this argument. The argument has been going on for millennia, and the Acts of Peter is an apologists' favorite. From now on, I'll stick with the Protestant New Testament, and never mention Acts of Peter again. But that means we have no details about Peter's death, so immediately the '10 of 12 were tortured and killed' argument is laid to rest.

The real question is not whether they initially doubted, but whether they at some point believed. The text seems to indicate they did.

I don't see that.

Read the book of Acts.

Cute answer. I'm looking in Acts, and I don't see anything that reads like, "Those who saw the risen Jesus and doubted it was really him have all changed their minds now, and they are totally committed." Can you specify chapter and verse please? Don't just tell us that some people believed so logically it must have been those earlier doubters. We need the specifics that those who looked the risen Jesus in the face and said, "I don't think that's really him," later reversed their position.

Why can't God violate the laws of what we know about physics?

That's a whole nother thread. When corpses start getting out of graves, I'll need a lot more than hearsay to accept it.

There is no "must." You can believe or not.

Well thanks for that. For some apologists like Josh McDowell (a favorite on this board), not believing what he says is tantamount to sinful disobedience.

In my view, the evidence is insufficient to make these leaps of faith. People believe strange things all the time, and the people of first-century Palestine was notorious for the lack of scepticism.

This assertion seems to be unfounded. It is contradicted by the very evidence you mentioned earlier in Matthew ch 28 in which some did not believe. Remember doubting Thomas? It seems they had the right amount of healthy scepticism combined with an open mind. Apparently, average 1st century Jews were not the gullible bumpkins you and Carrier would like us to believe

Oh come now. "Not all were gullible" means "none were gullible"? Surely you don't believe this. As Carrier noted early in the article, even the Bible depicts entire towns swept up in religious hysteria. That Matthew passage only says, "some doubted." "Some" could mean as little as two or three, but you want to make it into some vast majority? Would you say that the 30,000 people who followed the charlatan "The Egyptian" around Palestine had the proper balance of healthy skepticism and an open mind?

I'll finish by saying I'm glad you mentioned Thomas, because of all the disciples he's my favorite. He's the one who refused to take another person's eyewitness testimony that the dead had risen. I have no doubt that some of them said things like, "I saw the empty hole in the ground with my own eyes. You gotta believe me!" But Thomas refused. He simply said, "I'll reserve judgment until I examine the evidence for myself." So if Thomas got to wait until he could examine the facts, and he was blessed for his actions, then I should be afforded the same courtesy.

[Goose]

It seems you have a problem telling the difference from what are clearly stories from facts.

Maybe you would be kind enough to provide YOUR criteria for how you determine stories from facts. Don't historians derive their facts FROM stories?

Now if we were having a trivia contest you might have something to add but beyond that you are speculating about misconceptions, traditions, dogma and stories.

And you're doing what, exactly?

This thread isn't about Jesus, but because I brought him up and you've called me on Jesus dying because of a blasphemy charge, I'll address it.

If I remember correctly Jesus was not killed for blasphemy, they were false charges according to the story that the witnesses couldn’t agree on and his charge on the cross was “King of the Jews” which sounds rather political to me. But it is your story.

OK, we'll look at the story. You assert Jesus was NOT killed because of a blasphemy charge, but rather for some diabolical political plot. I'll start by saying there must have been some type of political element in Jesus' actual death as the Jews did not seem to be in a position to execute Jesus. But it is the Pharisees that initiate the process and manipulate the Romans. Let's see what the text says happened at the trial before the crucifixion. Mark 14:60-64 says:

60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death.(NIV)

What does the text seem to be suggesting here? It sounds an awful lot like Jesus was going to die as the result of a blasphemy charge.

I argue that it was politics that got them killed even if it (or you) says “Jealousy” and not for being witnesses or blasphemy.

Then you appear to be arguing against what the evidence seems to be suggesting. Though there was likely some manipulation by the Pharisees to cause the Romans to execute Jesus, it was the Pharisees that orchestrated this.

It is hardly blasphemy to be the Messiah or even claim to be the Messiah as the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE shows many Pharisees followed him and it may have been one of the dividing factors between what was once a Jewish movement or sect and the remaining Jews.

Noting the sign "King of the Jews" placed by Roman guards over Jesus as a mockery is hardly evidence of a political coo. You are probably right though, that simply claiming to be the messiah would not get one killed. In fact, the Jews would probably welcome a potential messiah, especially one that seemed to be fulfilling the anticipated roll. I'm arguiung that Jesus was killed for claiming to be the Son of God or divine in some sense. Apparently that was thought to be blasphemous by the high priest. That is what the text seems to suggest.

17But the high priest rose up, and all who were with him (that is, the party of the Sadducees), and filled with jealousy

What do you think they were Jealous of, being witnesses?

Read the verses right before in Acts 5:12-16. We are told why the Pharisees were jealous. The early Christian church was growing and the apostles were healing the sick and people were coming to Jerusalem as a result.

It seems the Jews and the Pharisees didn't’t have much of a problem and given the Sadducees were known collaborators with Rome it makes it all the more political.

You've lost me. Makes WHAT all the more political?

25And someone came and told them, "Look! The men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people." 26Then the captain with the officers went and brought them, but not by force, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people.

Where is your blasphemy?

Read a few verse more Acts 5:28-33:

28saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us." 29But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32And we are WITNESSES to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him." 33When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them.

They were preaching Jesus being raised, The Gospel, and affirming Jesus' claim to be seated at God's right hand. That's the same claim to divinity that the high priest perceived as a blasphemous claim by Jesus. I've highlighted that they affirm they were witnesses to these things! The Pharisees wanted to kill them for these comments. But on the advice of Gamaliel they didn't this time, but let them go with a beating. By Gamaliel's logic if the Christians were just another uprising like that with Theudas and Judas of Galilee it would eventually die out on it's own as they did, because the leader was dead. If it was of God, Gamaliel realized they wouldn't be able to stop it.

It looks like arresting someone in public could get you in “deep doo-doo” as I pointed out above.

The captain and his guards were worried about being stoned by a mob as a retaliation for arresting the apostles. Not as punishment for blasphemy once being condemned for it by a council of sorts. They weren't actually killed, only worried about the possibility. It's like saying being worried about an angry mob with guns is the same as a person killed by a firing squad for treason. You're comparing the act of stoning between two entirely different events, with different motives for the act. Then concluding stoning happened for other reasons than charges of blasphemy, therefore the Christians that died of stoning did not die for blasphemy or reasons related to faith, even though the text may tell us that they did. I'd say your argument here is bordering on the fallacy of equivocation or a form of it. I'll give you this, what you're suggesting has a possibility and it's something to ponder, but considering the evidence we have I'd say it's unlikely.

The charge was insurrection and the blasphemy charges didn’t stick.

No. There doesn't seem to be a founded charge at first. The Pharisees are simply jealous of the Christians for some reason and haul them in. They are set free and are rounded up again and almost get themselves killed for saying the same things that got Jesus killed.

Now lets move on to Stephen

I'm not really worried about Stephen right now. The text is not clear if he was a direct eye-witness or not. Though he MAY have been one of the 500, I won't assume that. So we don't need him for this thread as it is about the 12 disciples.

If I understood you correctly, and I could be wrong, you claim what made them martyr was that they witnessed the Resurrection of Jesus given martyr mean witness.

No. Go back and read my first post in this thread. I gave a definition of martyr. Being a witness to the resurrection gives rise to their faith and willingness to maintain that faith despite persecution.

What ever they were teaching, the problem probably wasn’t the “resurrection” as you repeatedly say, but that Jesus was king or Messiah and this would fit the political deaths, even the death of James better then blasphemy.

The evidence in Acts seems to suggest that the apostles were teaching the resurrection and Jesus as Christ.

The point I am making is that it is just part of the stories in Acts along with the invented speeches.

You haven't actually shown them to be mere fabricated stories. You've only offered your opinion and speculation. Conspiracy theories and accusations of the writers failing to "cover their tracks" makes for entertaining reading, but they hold little weight.

Are you assuming inerrancy because you have made a mess out of context?

I don't assume inerrancy in these types of discussions. That would be begging the big Q. As well, you certainly don't assume it, so why would I while debating it with you?

Acts 12:1-3 (English Standard Version)
James Killed and Peter Imprisoned
1About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. 2He killed James the brother of John with the sword, 3and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread.

Here we got Herod killing James then because it pleased the Jews (Sadducees and the High Priest?) he wanted to kill Peter too.
Remember this?

Acts 5:26 (English Standard Version)
26Then the captain with the officers went and brought them, but not by force, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people.

Who are they afraid of the “bunch of sniveling, disbanded, unorganized, cowards” now a mighty “force to be reckoned with”? Do Christians stone people now?

First the text doesn't tell us it WAS Christians, it just says the people. Secondly, why would it be a stretch to think there were Christian-Jews that had still adhered to their culture?

...you sure learned well.

Thanks, NOW can I have some tokens?

[Goose]

Are we still arguing over the definition of martyr?

No, you agreed to the definition of martyr earlier when you said "Fine..." to what I had suggested. Without a working definition or criteria to reference we are prone to committing logical fallacies such as begging the question, equivocation, and creating false or unnecessary expectations. Most of which have already been amply abused in this thread.

That's your axe to grind.

Don't we all have an axe to grind? I'll point to a couple of yours shortly.

I'll concede that James was martyred if you'll drop the notion that that must mean that all the disciples were martyred.

Go back and read my posts, at no time have I asserted that ALL the disciples WERE martyred. Only that they were in a position to know if it was a lie and they were at least WILLING to endure persecution and POSSIBLY even death. This conclusion is based on the early evidence we have for the deaths of James(the brother of John) in the book of Acts and that of Peter form 1 Clement 5. Both of which were written in the first century during the lives of at least some of the witnesses to the events.

All through the Protestant New Testament, we hear of exactly one disciple being put to a violent death--and that's James. Beyond that, the majority of the disciples are not even mentioned by name, let alone any details of their deaths. But it is apologists who trumpet, "All the disciples were tortured and killed." When asked for their sources, apologists haul out apocryphal works like the Gnostic Acts of Peter. They say, "See? Peter was crucified upside down; doesn't that make you want to believe?"

Axe number one.

Now sceptics notice that these attested works are also filled with fantastical elements that push them into absurdity. But if we assume (for the sake of argument) they are nothing but unbiased facts, these works also show that, say, political factors were involved in Peter's death, for example. This tends to tarnish the image of the meek, long-suffering penitent. (Perhaps if Peter would have urged Xanthippa to return to her husband as Jesus would have wanted he wouldn't have been put to death. But that's idle speculation.)

I'm glad you agree that we can learn invaluable historical information from these texts, despite their moments of absurdity as you've put it.

What if there were some element of political factors in his death as you seem to think there were? So what? How exactly does this tarnish his image of being long-suffering? I think of them as very human, already tarnished and imperfect. It's not a problem for me. (BTW, the text of Acts of Peter indicates that Peter urged the women to abstain from sex for holy reasons, not leave their husbands as in separation or divorce)

Now apologists are reluctant to mention these other elements to the faithful. I attended church for over thirty years and often was told of Peter's death, but not once was it mentioned that he was up to something with another man's wife or that he chatted with dogs. No, all I was told was that the disciples were all martyred and let's praise Jesus.

Axe number two.

As a side note, I find it fascinating that one can read the Acts of Peter and conclude he was killed for political reasons and that Peter was "up to something" with a married women. Then, conlcude we don't have enough information to know if Peter or James were martyred. (though you've now acknowledged James' marytrdom)

Now if the Council of Nicea passed on these apocryphal works as dubious or outright frauds, why should we be considering them?

I think there are good reasons to reject certain books. But that would be another thread. For the sake of historical purposes I'm prepared to look at anything written in the first century (give or take a few years)for reasons I've already given to glean any valuable historical information. We can leave the supernatural events aside for that purpose. After all, historians do not discard an ancient source simply because there is mention of some supernatural element. If they did, we would know very little about ancient history.

I'll tell you why, because they make the apologist's case, never mind the problems with them. But if apologists want to rely on them, then sceptics will point out the problems.

Well, hey, that's what you guys do best! You focus on the problems we work on the solutions. Ain't that fun?

So your criticisms of me using these works is unfounded. I may have been the first person to mention the Acts of Peter in this thread but I'm not the first to use it in this argument. The argument has been going on for millennia, and the Acts of Peter is an apologists' favorite.

You used these works for the very same reason apologists do. To prove your case. You are guilty of the same tactics you dislike in apologists.

From now on, I'll stick with the Protestant New Testament, and never mention Acts of Peter again. But that means we have no details about Peter's death, so immediately the '10 of 12 were tortured and killed' argument is laid to rest.

Considering I wasn't originally arguing for the '10 of 12 were tortured and killed' that's fine by me.

However, do you have any problem with accepting an early writing from the first century? We do have information on Peter's (and Paul's) martyrdom in 1 Clement 5. If you have issue with this, now is the time to say something about it. So far you have ignored Clement as though it didn't exist. With that data our running total is up to TWO of the disciples martyrdom based on early first century sources.

Cute answer. I'm looking in Acts, and I don't see anything that reads like, "Those who saw the risen Jesus and doubted it was really him have all changed their minds now, and they are totally committed." Can you specify chapter and verse please? Don't just tell us that some people believed so logically it must have been those earlier doubters. We need the specifics that those who looked the risen Jesus in the face and said, "I don't think that's really him," later reversed their position.

Why do you need them to say it? Don't actions speak louder than words?

Creating false expectation and using circular logic seems to be the theme in this thread. You realize your request is circular, don't you? It looks like this:

1. X is not true
2. For X to be true it must meet the following specific demands...
3. X can not meet those demands
4. Therefore X is not true
You've assumed the thing you are trying to prove, then you ask for a very specific piece of evidence worded in a particular way or close to it, to refute your preconceived conclusion. Then, if there isn't what you asked for, you will say that your conclusion is correct. These types of requests are so circular in nature I get dizzy just thinking about them. That's another one of MY axes.

But, I will endeavour to meet your demand as best I can. After the ascension of Jesus to heaven, Acts 1:12-14

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. 13 When they came into the city, they went to the upstairs room where they had been staying. They were Peter and John; James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 14 With one mind all of them kept devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. (ISV)

There are some variations on this verse but it sounds to me like they were all on the same page.

Oh come now. "Not all were gullible" means "none were gullible"?

We have gullible people in the 21st century, just like there were some in the first century. And it's not just us nutty theist types. I've met a few freethinking, educated, intelligent atheist types that have been taken for a ride with various things. This proves what?

Surely you don't believe this. As Carrier noted early in the article, even the Bible depicts entire towns swept up in religious hysteria. That Matthew passage only says, "some doubted." "Some" could mean as little as two or three, but you want to make it into some vast majority? Would you say that the 30,000 people who followed the charlatan "The Egyptian" around Palestine had the proper balance of healthy skepticism and an open mind?

I'll presume there were also ten of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands?) of people that DID NOT follow the Egyptian Charlatan as well.

So if Thomas got to wait until he could examine the facts, and he was blessed for his actions...

Actually, Thomas was given a gentle rebuke and those that have not seen but believed were blessed.

...then I should be afforded the same courtesy.

Why? What makes you so special?

[JamesBrown]

I think I'm done here, Goose. My whole purpose for replying to Tentex25's initial post was to contend his assertion that 10 of 12 disciples were tortured and killed. I see that in your first post you said that you don't argue for that either, so on that we agree.

Tentex25 also said that their sufferings have "more magnitude" than the sufferings of other religious believers, a statement which you have more or less defended. On that I think we'll have to agree to disagree. For you, the change in the disciples' behavior and their willingness to do what they did makes what they claimed to observe real for you. I myself can not accept that sort of evidence for a supernatural event when other natural explanations are also available. I know that people like you don't understand this thinking, but hey, I'm staking my eternal destination on this decision, right?. Surely you don't begrudge my wanting to be absolutely certain.

I've had a similar discussion with harvey1 on this board about a year ago, and he is of the same thinking that you are: "Paul is completely trustworthy and he changed his life for this, so it would be foolish not to completely change our lives based on what he said" (paraphrase). I know that many people are willing to do that, but I'm not. Eyewitness testimony is as good a place as any to begin the search for truth, but it's not foolproof. There are many criminals behind bars because of someone's eyewitness testimony, but there have also been many who avoided being wrongly sent to prison or who have been released from prison because of more reliable scientific evidence, contrary to what someone claimed to have seen.

Focusing on the reactions of disciples to what they experienced is somewhat like judging the merits of a movie based on fan response, or evaluating the qualities of a car purchase based on user testimony. For some people, all they need to know is that their neighbor Bob loves his Honda for them to follow suit and plunk down their cash at the Honda dealer. Not me, though. I'm more inclined to look at what Consumer Union has to say about the car rather than Honda advertising agencies or even satisfied customers. After all, a Honda driver may have different standards about what is a quality vehicle than I do. Maybe this is the first car they've ever owned, so that have nothing with which to compare. Maybe they were raised in a family of Honda owners and so are just more comfortable with the Honda brand, warts and all. Maybe their previous car was so terrible that anything is an improvement. Maybe they don't want to disparage their new car because that would imply that they made a poor decision, so they emphasize the positives and ignore the negatives. The only way to know is to conduct impartial investigation ourselves.

In the case of Jesus and his devoted followers, though, impartial investigation is not possible. At bottom, what we have is hearsay. It may be reliable hearsay, or it may not be reliable. Either way, what we do have is incomplete. I'd love to have a chat with those few who looked Jesus in the face and concluded that it wasn't him. Could that be why most resurrection appearances were accompanied by a case of mistaken identity? I'd really like to hear that Jesus appeared to Pilate, or Annias, or anyone else who's sense of worth wasn't wrapped up in Jesus defeating death. I'd really like to question Joseph of Arimathea. I'd especially like to see what Jesus himself has to say--his own words, not what others said he said. What a shame Jesus never thought to write anything down.

As for my own beliefs, I can't get on board with the idea that if anyone is martyred, then they must be telling the truth. Mormons claim that Joseph Smith was martyred when he was gunned down by a mob--does that mean I should be a Mormon? Several Companions of Mohammed were martyred: Abu Dharr died from a beating he received from a rival's soldiers; Ali was cut down with a sword; Umar and Al-Zubayr were knifed by assassins. They all died loyal Muslims, so maybe there's something there. There's even a fellow named Clive Doyle who was a firm believer in David Koresh at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. Doyle survived the fire and still believes that Koresh is the embodiment of God. What does someone do with all this eyewitness testimony?

[The Nice Centurion]

Second, assuming that they were put to death, what do you mean "martyred for Jesus"? People are put to death for many reasons--that they happened to be Christians at the time of their death is incidental.

That's like saying it's incidental that a Jew, killed in Germany during WWII, happened to be a Jew at the time of their death. If we can establish that their(the disciples) death had a connection to their Christianity then we can make a strong case it was martyrdom. Why would we assume they were killed for reasons OTHER than their faith? To assume they were killed for ulterior reasons, such as political, simply because the text does not explicitly say they were "martyred for Jesus" seems to be an unwarranted exegesis. It's a conclusion made in a vacuum and ignores the evidence of persecution and the threat of death.

I know this question goes about the apostles who once again get wrongnamed here as the disciples,
But why should they have been killed for their faith?

For example; After Rome burned during Neros time many christians admitted to be the pyromaniacs. And they said that of their own free will, without having to.

Them then were not executed for being christians (which were beneath Neros notice anyway) or believing in (the mechanics of) The Resurrection.

None of the gospels or epistles indicate that any apostle was martyred for, say, their belief in a resurrected Jesus.

This is creating a false expectation. The book of Acts speaks of the apostles preaching the resurrection of Jesus. Does the text need to explicitly detail the circumstance of each death to understand what is taking place?

Yes. Or else its convenient propagandistic pious fraud.

[TRANSPONDER]

When it comes down to it, a lot of f this is debatable. It is not for sure, even if it is in the Bible. It is not in the Bible. Acts says that James son of Zebedee was killed by Herod Agrippa I but doesn't say why. John the Baptist wasn't killed for his religious beliefs as such but because Antipas saw him as a threat. Perhaps Herod Agrippa did, too. That's if we can trust Acts. I don't think we can. I'd suggest that the writer wanted to fulfil; Jesus' prophecy about the sons of Zebedee drinking the same cup. I'd suggest the only reason John didn't get killed was because in Luke's day there were claims that John, putative author of the gospel of John and some thought was identical with the 'beloved disciple', had not only met Paul in Jerusalem but was reputedly still alive and preaching. Luke could not kill him off.

The Josephus reference to James, brother of Jesus in Josephus is arguable, and I've changed my mind on this a couple of times, but even if this is not James and Jesus, sons of Damnaeus, but of Joseph, and Jesus 'known as Christ (and not a Christian gloss), his elimination looks like a priestly power -struggle, not dying because he would not deny the resurrection..

All that is arguable, but what is not is that the Bible contains no martyred disciples and those are all church traditions. Not validated historical record or even invalid Biblical claims.

Again, cue the Believer claim that none of it specifically proves disciples were not killed for their Faith, but that doesn't matter; what matters is that there is no good reason why any one should swallow any of these Martyrdom claims as relating to the 12. And that means 'The disciples would not dfie for a lie' is no valid evidence that the resurrection was true.

[The Nice Centurion]

This must be an old way of apologetics. It is also an appeal to emotion.

So people would swallow it not only for pseudo-logical theological reasons, but as well because being compassionate to the poor apostles.

[TRANSPONDER]

This must be an old way of apologetics. It is also an appeal to emotion.

So people would swallow it not only for pseudo-logical theological reasons, but as well because being compassionate to the poor apostles.

Yes. I just wrote a long screed about historic appeal of martydoms, from the Satsuma Christian war to the Iran/Iraq war but my computer (1) said "Your readers don't need that; I'll lose that for you". So just that compassion for martyrs not validating their case, there is no more evidence that the 12 died from anything worse than living too long than there is for King Arthur or Robin Hood.
cue I Cor. This lie has to stop. I Cor has no validation for the gospel resurrections.

(1) my computers have always been female, and act like it.

P.s guess what my lady computer relented and gave memy post back.

Here it is, for what it's worth. Read it while I am gone on a banning pretty soon.
Martyrdom is a very effective marketing tool. Some may have seen the 'Last Samurai' which sorta Hollywoodized the last battle of the traditional Samurai against a modernised Japan amy. That last charge that so impressed everyone that Japan's military adopted the Bushido tradition. Similarly when Japan expelled the foreigners after the 16th century missionary interference from Portugal, there was a rebellion of Japanese Christians who were pretty much slaughtered. But their martyrdom is sorta like Joan of Arc for the Japanese. Not just for the Christians. We can cite Masada for Judaism and the martyrs in the war between Iran and Iraq. Suicide attacks by boys with grenades upon (or Under, rather) tanks.

I know the stories from Horatio holding the bridge and the Spartans at Thermopylae to Stand of the British army Sikhs against the Afghans or the Nisei Japanese in the US army scaling a cliff and if they fell, they did not cry out and alert the enemy. Yeah, we recognise bravery of a kind I doubt I could do. Though I'm with Mr Miyagi "Why we all so stupid?"

Because martyrdom is propaganda, not proof. Dogmas know that producing martyrs, real or fake and playing the victim is a propaganda tool if people fall for it. If the disciples did all die in line rather than say 'I did not see Jesus resurrected' I may admire and wonder whether I would refuse to deny atheism with a gun to my head. But admiration for the martyred 12 is not the point, it is that it must be true or they would not die rather say it was not.

It is evidence for the truth of the resurrection and that's why it is used as an apologetic. And at the risk of repeating myself, the counter is that there is no good reason to think that any of the 12 were martyred, and if they were it was as likely for political reasons (they were zealot pharisees) and if they did die affirming resurrection it was a spiritual (visionary) one, not the contradictory stories of Jesus walking about showing off his prosthetic war wounds applied to a new incorruptible body for identification purposes. The story makes no sense even without the contradictions and Mark not having it.

Cue: the Believers assert Faith. I don't care. I never care. It isn't about changing minds. The Christian Right (there, I've Said It ) mindset is to deny everything even if it is proven to the hilt. It is (for the undecided doubter as well as the undecided voter}, who is talking the most sense.

The propaganda pictures of Nativities and Jesus lifting his shirt and Thomas with his forefinger all ready have sold us fairy tales until we accept them. I don't even mind Christmas cards with the shepherds and Wise men together in front of a shack full of barn animals and surrounded by snow with a Christmas tree a star hovering overhead like a Flying saucer that can't get its; tractor beam working and angels flying about singing Bach's sanctus. We love a fairy story. But we should know that it is a legend or myth and nothing to do with reality and that goes for the Resurrection account (s) too, and the claims that the disciples were martyred rather than deny it happened.