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.

[d.thomas]

10 of the disciples were martyred for Jesus.

What are your sources?

[tentex25]

10 of the disciples were martyred for Jesus.

What are your sources?

Well, I can get them if you like, but I think that is besides the point. I am simply asking that if the disciples were tortured and martyred as external sources say they were, then what other disciples of other religions were done the same way without denouncing their leaders name? Debating the truth of this topic, sources would come in handy, but since almost everything on this board is theorized, let's stick to the topic.

[JamesBrown]

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.

Lots of assumptions here. First, do we know that 10 of the 12 disciples were martyred? Everyone says they were, but we all know how easy it is to repeat legends.

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. None of the gospels or epistles indicate that any apostle was martyred for, say, their belief in a resurrected Jesus. Stephen was stoned, but he was a convert, not an eyewitness. James was beheaded in Acts, but we don't know why. We don't know if he was offered the opportunity to recant. And we don't know if recanting would have spared his life. Peter was supposedly crucified upside down, but we only know that from the apocryphal work Acts of Peter, which clearly indicates he was executed for political reasons, not religious.

Third, groups of people are often persecuted and killed not because of what they believe, or because of what historical event they witnessed, but because they are unpopular. Nero's purges of Christian during the late first century was of this type. As a counter-example, the Jews were systematically destroyed by Nazis for, what, their belief in Moses? Does the "martyrdom" of six million Jews outweigh that of 10 mostly anonymous disciples, such that you will now become an orthodox Hasidim?

Fourth, the professor is right. Martyrs only prove that they are convinced, not correct.

What is your purpose of this question, comparing and contrasting different religions' martyrs? How hard have you looked for other faith's martyrs that have the same magnitude as that of Jesus' disciples? What criteria are you using when doing your ranking? You've said that the disciples died for Jesus, but they certainly weren't willing participants. Compare them to the faithful at Jonestown. Compare Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam war. Wouldn't suicide for one's faith rank higher on your magnitude scale compared to involuntary incarceration and execution?

And suppose these disciples lived in a comparative liberal and peaceful era, such that all of them lived long and prosperous lives preaching the gospel. Would your faith in Christianity be shaken by their lack of martyrdom? Or would you happily point to their success in life as yet another reason for the rest of us to become Christians? I find it awfully convenient that no matter what happens to a believer, good or bad, some Christians use it as proof for their point of view.

[Lotan]

10 of the disciples were martyred for Jesus.

You've been misinformed. McBirnie's book is a collection of legends, most of which were written centuries too late and are contradicted by other legends.

[JamesBrown]

Well, I can get them if you like, but I think that is besides the point. I am simply asking that if the disciples were tortured and martyred as external sources say they were, then what other disciples of other religions were done the same way without denouncing their leaders name? Debating the truth of this topic, sources would come in handy, but since almost everything on this board is theorized, let's stick to the topic.

If you are going to make a statement of historical fact ("disciples were tortured and killed"), it is not equivocating to insist on your sources. Yes, "external sources" do say that the disciples were tortured and killed, but are they reliable? External sources say that we are visited by aliens who have an inordinate fondness for cattle lips and the ovaries of middle-American housewives. Should we then discuss military strategies to repel these invaders? Or would that be a waste of time?

If the claim, "the disciples were tortured and killed" turns out to be fiction or highly exaggerated legends, then there is little point in comparing their ordeal with that of other faiths.

[Goat]

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.

As well he should.

Becasue, you don't have any real evidence this is so. Plus, there have many people who have been killed because of their belief, that is also a true statement. The fact that you are giving a greater emphasis on the 'disciples' is your bias.

[Cathar1950]

"10 mostly anonymous disciples" seems about right.
If you look at the gospels you can't even get a coherent list.
Paul seems to use the Roman card as soon as his life was in danger and we don't know what happened to him.
According to his letters he had a friend that was close to Nero and his friend got killed in one of Nero's fits of tyranny. But may have been visiting him that day for all we know.

[Goose]

Hope you don't mind me responding to this post.

Let's start with a definition of martyr, this might be useful.

A martyr is a person who is put to death or endures suffering because of a belief, principle or cause. The death of a martyr or the value attributed to it is called martyrdom. In different belief systems, the criteria for being considered a martyr is different. In the Christian context, a martyr is an innocent person who, without seeking death, is murdered or put to death for his or her religious faith or convictions.

No mention of the requirement of being offered an opportunity to recant. That is an added requirement to valid an argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr

Lots of assumptions here. First, do we know that 10 of the 12 disciples were martyred? Everyone says they were, but we all know how easy it is to repeat legends.

What we need to know is, are those legends based upon facts? To assume they are not with out looking at the evidence begs the question.

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.

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?

Stephen was stoned, but he was a convert, not an eyewitness.

True, the text doesn't explicitly say he was an eyewitness, but we know he spent time with the eye witnesses, yes? So we won't assume he was a primary eye-witness in a position to know if Jesus had resurrected. Stephen's martyrdom demonstrates that Christians were killed for their belief in Christ. We'll leave it at that.

James was beheaded in Acts, but we don't know why.

We do know why James was killed. We are told in Acts 12:1-2:

1It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. (NIV)

That's self-explanatory.

We don't know if he[James] was offered the opportunity to recant. And we don't know if recanting would have spared his life.

False expectation. It's not necessary for one to be offered the opportunity to recant and then turn it down in order to be considered a martyr. That's a false expectation you are inserting in an effort to remove the status of martyr.

Peter was supposedly crucified upside down, but we only know that from the apocryphal work Acts of Peter, which clearly indicates he was executed for political reasons, not religious.

That's not what I get from reading the Acts of Peter. It has as much to do with the religious convictions and the adherence to sexual morality of early Christianity as it does anything else. I wouldn't say it was clearly for political reasons.
Acts of Peter

XXXIV. And a certain woman which was exceeding beautiful, the wife of Albinus, Caesar's friend, by name Xanthippe, came, she also, unto Peter, with the rest of the matrons, and withdrew herself, she also, from Albinus. He therefore being mad, and loving Xanthippe, and marvelling that she would not sleep even upon the same bed with him, raged like a wild beast and would have dispatched Peter; for he knew that he was the cause of her separating from his bed. Many other women also, loving the word of chastity, separated themselves from their husbands, because they desired them to worship God in sobriety and cleanness. And whereas there was great trouble in Rome, Albinus made known his state unto Agrippa, saying to him: Either do thou avenge me of Peter that hath withdrawn my wife, or I will avenge myself. And Agrippa said: I have suffered the same at his hand, for he hath withdrawn my concubines. And Albinus said unto him: Why then tarriest thou, Agrippa? let us find him and put him to death for a dealer in curious arts, that we may have our wives again, and avenge them also which are not able to put him to death, whose wives also he hath parted from them.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... peter.html

Also we have early attestation to Peter and Paul's death in 1 Clement 5-6, written near the end of the first century or early second.

1Clem 5:1
But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation. 1Clem 5:2 By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. 1Clem 5:3 Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. 1Clem 5:4 There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. 1Clem 5:5 By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, 1Clem 5:6 having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance. 1Clem 6:1Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html

This speaks of the disciples, but only specifically names Peter and Paul. We could make a case that this passage also passively implies that other disciples faced a similar demise, though it would be an assumption.

Third, groups of people are often persecuted and killed not because of what they believe, or because of what historical event they witnessed, but because they are unpopular. Nero's purges of Christian during the late first century was of this type.

If they continue to hold that belief despite the threat of persecution or even death itself, their credibility in terms of the conviction of their belief significantly increases.

As a counter-example, the Jews were systematically destroyed by Nazis for, what, their belief in Moses? Does the "martyrdom" of six million Jews outweigh that of 10 mostly anonymous disciples, such that you will now become an orthodox Hasidim?

They were destroyed because they were Jewish. The difference in your counter-example is the disciples CHOSE to be followers of Christ and propagators of the Gospel knowing the possible consequences. The unfortunate Jews in WWII were born into Judaism, there was no choice for them, though we could consider them martyrs.

Fourth, the professor is right. Martyrs only prove that they are convinced, not correct.

Yes. I agree. Sincere conviction doesn't mean the person is right or the conviction held is true. However, you must find a plausible reason to excuse a martyrs behaviour. In the case of Christianity you need to find a way to account for the disciples behaviour after the alleged appearances of the resurrected Jesus.

What is your purpose of this question, comparing and contrasting different religions' martyrs?

Christianity has strength in that Jesus's disciples were in a position to know whether it was all a big hoax or it was true. Other religions that have martyrs were not necessarily in a position to know that what they believed was true.

You've said that the disciples died for Jesus, but they certainly weren't willing participants.

If one WILLINGLY SEEKS death, they are not a martyr but suicidal.

Compare them to the faithful at Jonestown.

Suicide. Not martyrdom.

Compare Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam war.

Self-harm. Not persecution.

Wouldn't suicide for one's faith rank higher on your magnitude scale compared to involuntary incarceration and execution?

Suicide and martyrdom/persecution are different in context. So, no, I personally wouldn't give suicide a higher ranking.

And suppose these disciples lived in a comparative liberal and peaceful era, such that all of them lived long and prosperous lives preaching the gospel. Would your faith in Christianity be shaken by their lack of martyrdom? Or would you happily point to their success in life as yet another reason for the rest of us to become Christians? I find it awfully convenient that no matter what happens to a believer, good or bad, some Christians use it as proof for their point of view.

Is this relevant? What one would or would not do has nothing to do with the truth value of Christianity and specifically the topic of this thread.

You've also missed early (late 1st C.) attestation for the death of James the brother of Jesus found in Josephus's Antiquities 20:9:1

...Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done...

James was a sceptic before the resurrection appearances.

Personally, I don't argue for all the disciples being martyred. We could make a case that they were, but some of the later accounts are speculative. So, personally, I prefer to argue the disciples endured persecution to the point that they would have likely died for their belief if required. This can be demonstrated from early evidence for several of the key players (such as Paul, Peter, and James) in the beginnings of Christianity. Persecution, is a given.

[JamesBrown]

Hope you don't mind me responding to this post.

Let's start with a definition of martyr, this might be useful...No mention of the requirement of being offered an opportunity to recant. That is an added requirement to valid an argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr

Fine, but the question was not, "What is a martyr?" Tentex's original assertion was that 10 of 12 disciples were martyred for Jesus, his words being "tortured and killed, never denouncing," then he went on to assert that other religions' martyrs don't have "the same magnitude." My post was not to address whether anyone has been martyred for Jesus--of course they have, and still are today. My post was to address the dual claims that Christian martyrs are somehow more special than others, and that Christian martyrdom is a proof of Christian beliefs, since no one would willingly risk their lives unless the events the beliefs are based on were true.

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.

Well, can we establish that their deaths were because of what they eyewitnessed? Be careful not to lump the small group of resurrection eyewitnesses with the larger group of Christian believers. It's one thing to be martyred for what you believe--it's quite another to be martyred for what you saw. To be martyred for what you believe is tragic, to be sure, but that has happened in all cultures and all times.

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, if you want to accurately state why he was put to death, then details are necessary. Preaching and being put to death are two different things, and to associate the two simply because they are mentioned in the same broad history is also reaching. People can be arrested and put to death for many reasons--what their occupation at the time is may or may not be relevant.

Suppose we learned of a man who was beaten and arrested by the police, incarcerated, found guilty of his crimes and then put to death. Now suppose we learned that the man was a priest of a small local parish. A Christian sympathizer is very likely to assume that the priest was martyred for his faith. If that's all we have to go one, that's a fair assumption. But lets get more facts. Suppose the man had publicly preached against the town's mayor who was accepting kickbacks from construction firms and who was having an affair with another man's wife. Now perhaps there are some politics involved in his death. So was he still martyred for his faith? But here are more facts. Suppose the priest had just been discovered as the murderer of a small child. He resisted arrest with a deadly weapon which explains why he was beaten by police. He was found guilty according to the laws of the land and sentenced to death. Now do we say he was a martyr for his faith?

All of that is NOT to say that I believe the apostles were murderers executed for their crimes. But the point is that without more details, it is as much of a leap to say that they were martyred for nothing more than quietly sharing their experiences with their neighbors as it is to assume that there were other reasons they were executed. What's more, the Book of Acts is hardly an unbiased source of history--without knowing all sides of the story, we can hardly make a fair judgment that the Christian martyrs somehow prove their stories were airtight.

Stephen's martyrdom demonstrates that Christians were killed for their belief in Christ. We'll leave it at that.

Don't forget, also, that Stephen was not killed for what he believed, but because of a false charge, by a mob, from whom he couldn't have escaped if he recanted. Does this really make Stephen the long-suffering hero that Christians want him to be?

James was beheaded in Acts, but we don't know why.

We do know why James was killed. We are told in Acts 12:1-2:

1It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. (NIV)

That's self-explanatory.

Well again, were they persecuted for their beliefs, or because they had observed certain facts? Sorry, but we don't know why he was killed (meaning, we don't know why Herod wanted to persecute these Christians, nor why James was arrested--was it because of his leadership position in the church to teach the others a lesson?), and we don't know if recanting would have saved him.

I'll grant that we know more about the circumstances of James' death than any other of the disciples (although not much more), but it is still a fallacious leap to say, "James was killed for his faith, therefore James was killed because he was an eyewitness, therefore ALL the disciples were killed because they were eyewitnesses, therefore Jesus is alive!" All we know was that James was killed for his faith, period.

Beyond that, you don't have much more. Hey, the Gospels can't even get the names of the disciples straight. We certainly can't bank on the knowledge that all the disciples were executed for their belief in a physical resurrection.

We don't know if he[James] was offered the opportunity to recant. And we don't know if recanting would have spared his life.

False expectation. It's not necessary for one to be offered the opportunity to recant and then turn it down in order to be considered a martyr. That's a false expectation you are inserting in an effort to remove the status of martyr.

Again, I'm not trying to demote James from his martyr position so much as I'm addressing the fallacy that Christian martyrs are more special than anyone else.

Peter was supposedly crucified upside down, but we only know that from the apocryphal work Acts of Peter, which clearly indicates he was executed for political reasons, not religious.

That's not what I get from reading the Acts of Peter. It has as much to do with the religious convictions and the adherence to sexual morality of early Christianity as it does anything else. I wouldn't say it was clearly for political reasons.
Acts of Peter

XXXIV. And a certain woman which was exceeding beautiful, the wife of Albinus, Caesar's friend, by name Xanthippe, came, she also, unto Peter, with the rest of the matrons, and withdrew herself, she also, from Albinus. He therefore being mad, and loving Xanthippe, and marvelling that she would not sleep even upon the same bed with him, raged like a wild beast and would have dispatched Peter; for he knew that he was the cause of her separating from his bed. Many other women also, loving the word of chastity, separated themselves from their husbands, because they desired them to worship God in sobriety and cleanness. And whereas there was great trouble in Rome, Albinus made known his state unto Agrippa, saying to him: Either do thou avenge me of Peter that hath withdrawn my wife, or I will avenge myself. And Agrippa said: I have suffered the same at his hand, for he hath withdrawn my concubines. And Albinus said unto him: Why then tarriest thou, Agrippa? let us find him and put him to death for a dealer in curious arts, that we may have our wives again, and avenge them also which are not able to put him to death, whose wives also he hath parted from them.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... peter.html

See? Political leaders conspiring to kill off Peter because his preaching encouraged the leader's wives to leave their husbands. So what does that have to do with Peter being an eyewitness? Are you saying that only an eyewitness of a physical resurrection could ever incite a woman to leave her husband?

Incidentally, the Acts of Peter also includes charming elements like a talking dog, a resurrected fish, and a flying wizard. So how reliable is it as an unbiased chronicle of history?

Third, groups of people are often persecuted and killed not because of what they believe, or because of what historical event they witnessed, but because they are unpopular. Nero's purges of Christian during the late first century was of this type.

If they continue to hold that belief despite the threat of persecution or even death itself, their credibility in terms of the conviction of their belief significantly increases.

Well, Nero's Christians were persecuted because of the false charge of arson, so their deaths don't prove anything.

The unfortunate Jews in WWII were born into Judaism, there was no choice for them, though we could consider them martyrs.

Since you consider them martyrs, are you going to convert to Judaism now?

Sincere conviction doesn't mean the person is right or the conviction held is true. However, you must find a plausible reason to excuse a martyrs behaviour. In the case of Christianity you need to find a way to account for the disciples behaviour after the alleged appearances of the resurrected Jesus.

Well, when there are so many different reasons why someone changes his behavior, do we just pick the one that supports our position? Mohammed changed his behavior after chatting with an angel. So did Joseph Smith. Buddha and Krishna changed their behaviour with the use of incense and meditation. Dan Barker changed his behavior after intense study of the Bible and is now proud to call himself a happy atheist. People change, sometimes dramatically, for countless reasons.

What is your purpose of this question, comparing and contrasting different religions' martyrs?

Christianity has strength in that Jesus's disciples were in a position to know whether it was all a big hoax or it was true. Other religions that have martyrs were not necessarily in a position to know that what they believed was true.

Perhaps. But Matthew 28 recounts that some people looked the risen Jesus in the face and didn't believe what they saw, so perhaps the experience was not the slam dunk some would have us think.

Suicide and martyrdom/persecution are different in context. So, no, I personally wouldn't give suicide a higher ranking.

But others would. When Jesus willingly went with his arresters, was he not in a sense suicidal? Isn't that what laying down one's life means? While someone committing suicide because one thinks life is hopeless is indeed tragic, self-sacrifice certainly takes much more courage than being dragged off in chains to the chopping block.

People of all religions have willingly laid down their lives for their religious beliefs. Giordani Bruno was tried by the Catholic church for having the audacity to speculate that the stars were other suns with planetary systems, and he was given the opportunity to recant before he was burned at the stake. (Bruno refused.) Whereas in the Bible we see Christians lie about whether they even knew Jesus, escape from prisons, flee cities in which the citizens are bent on arresting or killing them. For my money, someone who willingly lays down his life because of what he believes is far more noteworthy than someone who is unwillingly executed by the state. But I'll grant that others might feel differently.

Is this relevant? What one would or would not do has nothing to do with the truth value of Christianity and specifically the topic of this thread.

Exactly. Which is why trying to convince skeptics that Christianity is true because of what other believers have done is not relevant. The road runs both ways. If persecution and martyrdom is somehow a point in Christianity's favor, then peaceful living and harmony should be a point against it. Except an apologist never accepts that. He wants both scenarios to be evidence for his case.

James was a sceptic before the resurrection appearances.

But this passage recounts that he was stoned for breaking Jewish law, not for his beliefs, and the hagiographer Hegesippus reported James died not for his belief in a physical resurrection but for proclaiming Jesus as the messiah, who was at that moment in heaven. Neither of those points require a physical resurrection but merely a religious belief, identical to countless religious beliefs throughout the centuries for which believers have been willing to die for.

Why is it when a Christian is persecuted for his faith, this is supposed to be evidence that Christianity is true, but when the Catholic church executed countless pagans, this doesn't somehow lend support to paganism. At best, apologists will just mutter that the Inquisition was an unfortunate case of misapplied doctrine run amok. But don't the pagan martyrs validate their beliefs as well?

I'll say it one last time. My issue is not whether Christians have ever been persecuted or killed. Scouring your two-thousand-year-old texts for a reliable story of a Christian who was persecuted is pointless. My issue is with the fallacious use of special pleading, arguing that Christian martyrs are of a higher value than any other martyrs.