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 popularlevel arguments for the resurrection (or ever heard a sermon on the apostles), youve 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 werent 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?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #60]
The Six Million Dollar Man proved that Bigfoot are robotic pets brought to earth by Ufos.

Millions of TV viewers are eyewitnesses to that!

[The Nice Centurion]

Where's the evidence? The default isn't to assume something incredibly impossible by all means known to man could happen, especially when we see people create all kinds of bizarre stories, religions, urban legends, tales.

The onus is not on me. It's enough to say you have no evidence: e.g, where is Jesus now?

This is what Religionists don't understand. They think everyone needs to believe their religious tale or else prove it wrong. It's messed up.

Im not saying that is the default. The default is agnosticism (in this case, "we dont know if the resurrection happened"). If that were your claim, I wouldnt have asked for your reasoning. Instead, if I had wanted to pursue a discussion I would make a claim and then I would try to carry that burden by offering rational support for that claim.

But that wasnt your claim, was it? You claimed the resurrection didnt happen. That is not the default position, agnosticism is. So, either support your claim (and shifting the burden is not a rational way to do so) or admit that was the wrong claim to make and change it to an agnostic one.

Why support disbelief against one claim that is nada supported at the slightest?

Do we have even the tale of one single eyewitness for the actual resurrection?
No!
Do we have even one narration of the resurrection?
No! Not.even the narrators cared!

So what substance is there to be even sceptical about, when not even the evangelists cared to describe "The Resurrection"?!

[The Tanager]

Seriously? Please tell me you are not actually going to believe the unicorn/fairy story until someone provides evidence that neither are real!

do you have evidence that a supernatural resurrection didnt happen?

Or..... Do you have evidence that Muhammad did not fly to heaven on a white horse, supernaturally?

Or.... Do you have evidence Lord Xenu did not drop billions of souls into earthly volcanos, supernaturally?

No. And you shouldnt believe in the supernatural resurrection until you see evidence that such is real. Saying you dont believe the supernatural resurrection claim is different then claiming that it definitely didnt happen. You did the latter. You have no burden on the first, but you have the burden on the second. I have not claimed in this thread that the supernatural resurrection occurred. You both are claiming that dead bodies cant come back to life supernaturally. So support your claim or clarify you were making the weaker claim of "I see no reason to believe the resurrection happened."

[The Tanager]

Why is extreme skepticism the default?

Haha. Funny. Aliens and Big Foot are real, too, right?

I didn't say that. It looks like you dont have any rational reason to support your claim that extreme skepticism is the default. Okay.

[The Tanager]

Why is extreme skepticism the default?

Claim #1: Jesus was placed on a cross and died. He was buried.
Claim #2. Jesus was placed on a cross and died. He was buried. He later resurrected supernaturally.

By default, do claims 1 and 2 carry the same level of skepticism?

No. I didn't claim they did. Don't warp the context. Bng claimed the default is skepticism rather than agnosticism. Do you agree with Bng? If so, why?

[boatsnguitars]

Why is extreme skepticism the default?

Claim #1: Jesus was placed on a cross and died. He was buried.
Claim #2. Jesus was placed on a cross and died. He was buried. He later resurrected supernaturally.

By default, do claims 1 and 2 carry the same level of skepticism?

No. I didn't claim they did. Don't warp the context. Bng claimed the default is skepticism rather than agnosticism. Do you agree with Bng? If so, why?

I think you are doing that thing again where you feign ignorance. Tucker Carlson does that, too, as an aside...

I think you can completely understand why the claims of any of the miracles in Hinduism or Christianity are to be met with extreme skepticism.

The only thing not to be met with extreme skepticism are the claims of John Frumism. They are completely believable on the face.

Oh, and these, completely rational claims:
https://www.medievalists.net/2014/05/to ... ddle-ages/

But, I know... you are motivated to believe the miracles in the Bible because when you were 12, you chose that religion.

[Clownboat]

Seriously? Please tell me you are not actually going to believe the unicorn/fairy story until someone provides evidence that neither are real!

do you have evidence that a supernatural resurrection didnt happen?

Or..... Do you have evidence that Muhammad did not fly to heaven on a white horse, supernaturally?

Or.... Do you have evidence Lord Xenu did not drop billions of souls into earthly volcanos, supernaturally?

No. And you shouldnt believe in the supernatural resurrection until you see evidence that such is real. Saying you dont believe the supernatural resurrection claim is different then claiming that it definitely didnt happen. You did the latter. You have no burden on the first, but you have the burden on the second. I have not claimed in this thread that the supernatural resurrection occurred. You both are claiming that dead bodies cant come back to life supernaturally. So support your claim or clarify you were making the weaker claim of "I see no reason to believe the resurrection happened."

Days dead bodies do not reanimate, even if you read about them in a book. Inventing a supernatural that there is also no evidence for is just desperation to justify the initial idea that dead bodies can return to life. The fact that neither of these ideas (dead bodies reanimating or the supernatural) have any evidence supports our known reality that days dead bodies do not return to life.

Adding layers doesn't help. For example, there is no evidence to suggest a supernatural realm. We know this and inventing an idea that fairies can do supernatural things for example does not provide evidence for the claims that lack any evidence whatsoever. Now we have fairies needed for supernatural, which is needed to justify the religious claim of a resurrection. Me being able to imagine a scenario for how we got fairies is just adding baggage and does not affect the original observation that days dead bodies cannot return to life.

Unicorns created fairies long ago. The fairies deal in a supernatural realm and dead body returned to life because of the supernatural.
Skeptic: Where did unicorns come from?
Claimant: Give me a second while I imagine another answer while still believing that a days dead body reanimated as told in a religious holy book.
Claimant: Dragons actually existed long before the unicorns and battled with evil donkeys. They had to create the unicorns to assist with their battle against the donkeys.
Claimant: Where did the dragons come from you ask? Give me a second...

There is no reason to believe that days dead bodies can reanimate back to life. Humans can pretend that this is possible only if they accept explanations like the supernatural or fairies, but as shown, that only adds baggage and doesn't actually support the original claim. My claim is therefore supported.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #9]


You aren't getting the point. Or you are repeating McDowell's strawman - rather similar to Lord Liar or Lunatic - it gives only limited options, they were either lunatics or liars (and who would die for a lie?) or they told the truth.

Alternatives are that they didn't die for the resurrection, and despite the discussion we had about what the persecution (attested by Paul) was actually about, there is really no valid evidence that anyone who saw Jesus alive on the Sunday died rather than deny it. Not even in the Bible. There is the killing of James son of Zebedee, but it is not clear why, even if you trust Acts more than I do.

Neither does Paul clarify the matter. Despite your efforts to talk about the cross as the basis of the persecution, the belief in Jesus' resurrection by Paul and the disciples, (which I do not deny), that is not necessarily the same as the body walking as in the contradictory gospel accounts. I Cor is also different and seems to relate to later visions in he head, not to Jesus' body with holes in. And even if you and McDowell or other believers refuse to accept that, I do, so you won't tell me that I Cor is any support for the dead Jesus walking about with holes on conflicting witnesses.

So the alternatives to McDowell's proposition are: there could be a different resurrection than the one related in the discrepant gospels accounts, and the persecution might not be to get them to recant anyway. The McDowell proposition fails just for the same reason the Lord, Liar or Lunatic proposition fails.

[The Tanager]

Okay, so lets try to say this in a different way. I did not claim here that dead bodies can return to life. My claims in this thread have been about how the "apostles made up the resurrection" theory is unreasonable. Thats it.

Then bng, Clownboat, and POI (maybe others) are talking about how resurrections cant happen and then say its my burden to show resurrections can happen. Why? It wasnt my claim here.

[TRANSPONDER]

Okay, so lets try to say this in a different way. I did not claim here that dead bodies can return to life. My claims in this thread have been about how the "apostles made up the resurrection" theory is unreasonable. Thats it.

Then bng, Clownboat, and POI (maybe others) are talking about how resurrections cant happen and then say its my burden to show resurrections can happen. Why? It wasnt my claim here.

It still (for me) misses the point. Though my approach may not be the usual. While dead bodies do not return to life at least not unless very recently dead and revived with the best efforts, Jesus is a one - off situation and the norms do not apply.

While the matter of an extraordinary claim applies, the claim that several persons saw Jesus (supposedly dead (1) alive and walking means that this one uncommon event actually happened and moreover convinced the apostles of some religious belief they thought so important they were willing to die rather than deny the event that convinced them.

I don't deny that the disciples were mostly convinced by the claim that Jesus had risen (I suspect that James - if the Less, one of the 12 - only went along with the belief after everyone else) but I am pretty sure that, whatever it was, it was not the event depicted in the gospels, and the evidence is:

They disagree on serious matters which can only be fiddled together by playing the 'There was some good reason they left that out' to the limit and beyond. And that explains why Mark has no appearance. The excuses why he, surely one of the first, left the most important bit out are trash and insults. 'everyone knew the ending' 'it is dramatically better'. This was an early gospel intended to persuade and convince that Jesus had risen. How could he leave out the ending? Especially since the later gospels added several accounts?

No. the better explanation is - there was an empty tomb - claim. Supposed to back up the resurrection belief. The synoptics had an angel posted to explain everything (John doesn't have it) and thereafter they simply invent contradictory tales.

If I stand there, it seems to me irrelevant to relate those tall tales to any belief in a risen messiah that the 12 and indeed Paul may have had and might even have been willing to die for - like many a Martyr for a faith that wasn't true. It is really no evidence for the accounts in the gospels. Accounts that are supposed to be reliable enough eyewitness that any skeptic or Doubter should have to confess it looks reliable.

In truth, any believer or creditor of the resurrection should (when they understand how badly the stories conflict) have to confess that it looks unreliable. However, as we have seen, they look for any excuse, make up explanations and play the 'weaving together' game to the limit and beyond. Though they struggle with Mary apparently running slap into Jesus in Matthew but in John, she hadn't even heard the angel explain where Jesus was.

We are in the realm of Faithbased denial and I am familiar with those who think it ok to claim that Luke knew that the disciples (after chatting to Jesus the evening after Sunday), all trooped off to Galilee to hear Jesus tell them what he could have told them over his fish supper, and then they come back for their 40 day scripture lesson, and Luke says nothing about it other than they were ordered to stay in Jerusalem and did so.

Well, such denial won't persuade me and it is a question of how open - minded the others are, because any kind of open mind has to doubt the reliability of the resurrection accounts once they know, and they must wonder why the Bible teachers never even mentioned it.

It looks to me folks like the Big Lie, a huge con. They know it makes no sense, but they cover it up. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I know a conspiracy when I see one. This is one to keep Bible credibility going, however it is done. That the resurrection stories fit together is the greatest con trick ever, bigger than the Soviet system works, bigger than Gods from outer space. It had me believing it, too.

But like the Atheist Axiom says, 'Once you know how the trick is done, you will never be fooled by it again'. Trying to pass off the Christian claim that the disciples died rather than deny the resurrection, is evidence of the resurrection, is the equivalent of the snake oil stooge in the audience, and the attempt to pass off I Cor as the gospel resurrection is the girl in the fishnet tights distracting the audience while the magician fishes around in his trousers for the white rabbit.

(1) I don't even raise the point that none of the disciples knew for sure that Jesus was actually dead.