A quick response here:
Deadclown wrote: The disciples who were present for the death and resurrection of Jesus as depicted in the bible, maintained the truth of this event unto the point of their executions (martyrdom) for maintaining it as true.
Partially correct. But for Christians then (as now), believing in Christ involves more than just the Resurrection. There were a "package" of beliefs held and preached by the apostles which made them targets for hostility from pagan and Jewish communities eventuating in their deaths. For instance, the apostles taught and practised a refusal to declare Caesar "Lord and God" and participate in the state-sponsored Emperor cult; they preached that the traditions of the Jewish elders were irrelevant to salvation.
Declaring that God had come in the form of a man and died on the cross was scandalous to the Jewish culture. It would be like someone saying today that God had come in the form of a man and been put to death in the electric chair. Conversely, in a pagan culture, condemning idols did not usually put people in a safe place.
Thus, they died for their belief in Christ. The specifics about their Christian belief which offended the people around them was different in each case.
Since human beings do not willingly suffer/die for lies, these individuals must have truly believed that what they maintained was in fact, true. This is not to say that their words were based on objectively true facts or events, only that they truly believed in what they expressed since they were willing to die for it.
Correct. The truth of a proposition is not dependent on whether someone is willing to die for it. The most we can infer from someone dying for a belief is that
they sincerely held the belief to be true.
Please kindly correct me if I've got any of that wrong, and I'll adjust my arguments accordingly. I see several problems with the proposition;
Nope. Your re-statement of the proposition is pretty good. You are one of the few posters who seems to have carefully read the argument.
1) Saying 'they were lying or they were not' is an example of the black/white fallacy. There are a lot of shades of gray and possibilities. They could have just exaggerated or eventually came to 'believe the lie/exaggeration'. The human brain is great at making the gray area grayer due to the nature of our faulty memories, our ability to create false memories, and our ability to be supremely amazingly adept at lying to ourselves.
I still do not think this cuts much ice. There were eleven Apostles (the twelfth, Judas Iscariot, being dead by the time of the Resurrection). Those Apostles preached in contexts in which they were in groups, and at other times, when they were on their own. In all situations they appear to have had a remarkably unified and consistent account, which is not to be expected if their stories were merely a case of exaggeration. Remember, some of them were subject to severe questioning as individuals - yet their stories did not deviate a hairsbreadth. A mere exaggerated story would certainly branch in all directions, as any parent who has sought the truth from children is well aware.
Furthermore, the apostles accepted Paul into the apostolic circle - an outsider and former Pharisee who had not walked with the incarnate Christ. That is a powerful corrective mechanism for any exaggeration. It would be like belonging to a small vigilante group whose members are being hunted down and arrested by the CIA, and then having one of the CIA's top members want to join. If the vigilante group was based on an exaggerated story, the worst and most dangerous thing in the world would be allow an outsider and former enemy, into the fold.
False Memory Syndrome is different from what you suggest. All people have false memories - that is simply a truism - but False Memory Syndrome is more of a personality disorder. It is defined as:
A condition in which a person's identity and interpersonal relationships are centered around a memory of traumatic experience which is objectively false but in which the person strongly believes. Note that the syndrome is not characterized by false memories as such. We all have memories that are inaccurate. Rather, the syndrome may be diagnosed when the memory is so deeply ingrained that it orients the individual's entire personality and lifestyle, in turn disrupting all sorts of other adaptive behavior...False Memory Syndrome is especially destructive because the person assiduously avoids confrontation with any evidence that might challenge the memory. Thus it takes on a life of its own, encapsulated and resistant to correction. The person may become so focused on memory that he or she may be effectively distracted from coping with the real problems in his or her life.
Is it even remotely likely that eleven people would simultaneously contract False Memory Syndrome from the execution of Christ? Let us compare and contrast what is predicted for suffers and the behaviour of the apostles.
Under FMS, personalities are changed for the
worse. In contradistinction to an FMS sufferer, the Apostles became joyful and full of hope and love. They were the original, first century hippies - "
peace, not war, man!"
Under FMS people
lose adaptive skills. Yet the Apostles show tremendous resilience. They appear to have had a great capacity to endure negative events. For instance, they were flogged repeatedly and imprisoned and yet responded by singing hymns and even rejoicing in such abuse! The Apostle Andrew is said to have preached for three days from his own crucifix. I would say that demands just a tad bit of moral stamina, as well as genuine spunk.
Under FMS people
refuse to confront the false memory. This was never even a possibility for the Apostles. They preached to the most rigidly orthodox Jews in history about a crucified and resurrected Jewish messiah. Without a single doubt they would have been bombarded with scepticism, denial and claims to the contrariwise about the Resurrection, yet we are told they debated willingly with the Jews - facing whole crowds, visiting synagogues and even singling whole communities out for disputation.
False memory and exaggeration are therefore
not plausible alternatives to outright lying. And since the argument is a truism - people do not willingly suffer and die for beliefs they know to be untrue - we must conclude that the apostles at least sincerely believed their message to be true.
2) People are potentially willing to die for things they know to be lies or do not truly believe in. People are willing to die for all sorts of things. Positing that there is no conceivable way that the individuals in question could have been willing to lay their lives on the line for a fabrication, is an Argument from Incredulity.
I think the argument is closer to being
potentially the fallacy of too few alternatives. But this would apply
only if the alternatives to the one provided in the argument were plausible. However, I do not think there is any logical or rational alternative to the view that the disciples sincerely believed their own message.
You are correct that people are willing to die for things they know to be lies, but you have omitted the other qualification in the argument. Are they also willing to
suffer for a lie? People may die for a lie - particularly if it provides material advantage - but protracted suffering for a lie is another story.
Remember, the Apostles were not just martyred. They were persecuted. They were flogged repeatedly with scourges - think a cat-o-nine-tails studded with beads or glass. They were bound in freezing dungeons. Almost torn apart by angry mobs. They were bashed up. Robbed. Lived in constant danger. Escaped from murderous crowds by the skin of their teeth. And this went on for about
35 years! Can you think of
anyone who has knowingly suffered 35 years of shedding of their own blood, ending in a final penniless martyrdom for a
lie?
There could have been other factors in play that we are simply ignorant of. For example, pride. There are people who would certainly rather die a martyr in front of followers rather than admit that they've been lying and live in shame. Maybe they believed they'd be killed either way (executed or by the followers they betray) and it was better to die a hero.
As above. 35 years of physical suffering, danger and poverty tends to have the effect of dissolving fantasies, humbling pride, and tidying up exaggeration. Are you suggesting that the followers they taught to "live in peace with every man" would turn around and
kill them? In fact some of their congregations
did break away and even repudiate their founding apostle, but none of them demonstrated a murderous intent toward the apostles. Neither did the heretical Christians who utterly repudiated the apostolic teaching and witness.
The evidence of biblical accounts detailing the deaths of the martyred individuals is not sufficient on its own to be taken as fact. More historical evidence corroborating it would be necessary in order to show the assumptions (these individuals were present for the resurrection and were martyred for maintaining its truth) have validity. As it stands we have little to know way of knowing with a high degree of certainty that the accounts are all factual. If there is corroborating evidence, I would enjoy reading it.
All the historical sources documenting the deaths of the apostles are extra-biblical. As for knowing for "certain": we have about as much historical information about the deaths of the apostles as we do the for the death of Caesar. We have far more historical information for the death of the apostles than we do for the deaths of ancient pharaohs. That's about as good as ancient history gets.
