Does martyrdom prove the resurrection?

[unknown soldier]

Do we know Jesus rose from the dead because his disciples were martyred for that claim? Many Christian apologists argue that yes, since people won't die for a lie, the martyred disciples knew that Jesus was risen. Unfortunately, apologists typically don't offer examples of disciples dying that way. So I'd like the apologists here to post an example of a disciple who fits the following description:

1. There should be good evidence that the disciple existed.
2. The disciple was in a position to know that Jesus was raised from the dead.
3. There were people who wanted the disciple to either recant the claim that Jesus was raised or choose to die.
4. These people abducted the disciple and were able to execute him.
5. The disciple was given the option to recant or die, and he opted to die rather than deny that Jesus was raised from the dead.
6. The disciple was then executed.

If there is no such disciple, then the apologetic fails.

[Goose]

Do we know Jesus rose from the dead because his disciples were martyred for that claim?

No, I don’t think martyrdom proves that Jesus rose from the dead. The early church’s willingness to endure persecution and risk the possibility of death while preaching the message (which entailed the resurrection) strongly argues for the sincerity of their belief and against the notion they made it all up since people aren’t typically willing to endure such things to protect a fabricated story.

Many Christian apologists argue that yes, since people won't die for a lie, the martyred disciples knew that Jesus was risen. Unfortunately, apologists typically don't offer examples of disciples dying that way. So I'd like the apologists here to post an example of a disciple who fits the following description:

1. There should be good evidence that the disciple existed.
2. The disciple was in a position to know that Jesus was raised from the dead.
3. There were people who wanted the disciple to either recant the claim that Jesus was raised or choose to die.
4. These people abducted the disciple and were able to execute him.
5. The disciple was given the option to recant or die, and he opted to die rather than deny that Jesus was raised from the dead.
6. The disciple was then executed.

If there is no such disciple, then the apologetic fails.

I can't think of a disciple that fits every one one of your criteria but in response I will note, firstly, I don’t need such an example to make the argument work. Further, I think the apologetic (at least how I’ve laid it out above) failing does not follow logically from the conditional statement if there is no such disciple.

Secondly, in the event you may be interested, we do have relatively early historical evidence that the church was persecuted and risked the possibility of death.

”As they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, being greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them and put them in jail until the next day, for it was already evening.” – Acts 4:1-4

“But the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail.” – Acts 5:17-18

”But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.” But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them.” – Acts 5:29-33

”They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them.” – Acts 5:40

The Greek word here for “flogged” is derō which is defined by Strong’s as “A primary verb; properly to flay, that is, (by implication) to scourge, or (by analogy) to thrash: - beat, smite.” It’s the same word used for Jesus’ flogging (Luke 22:63).

” Now when they [the Jews and high priest-Acts 7:1] heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at [Stephen]... But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears and rushed at him with one impulse. When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep.” – Acts 7:54, 57-60

”Saul was in hearty agreement with putting [Stephen] to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him. But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.” – Acts 8:1-3

”Now about that time Herod the king laid hands on some who belonged to the church in order to mistreat them. And he had James the brother of John put to death with a sword. When he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also.” – Acts 12:1-3

Outside the New Testament near the end of the first century (c. 95 AD) Clement relays the martyrdom of Peter (and Paul).

”But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” - 1 Clement 5.

[JehovahsWitness]

I agree it doesnt prove the resurrection happened it, but its not an element to be ignored or brushed aside as insignificant.

Those,that argue the first century Christians that lent their testimony to the resurection were all suffering from some kind of mass delusion that compelled them to desire to be expelled from their communities, derided persecuted and even killed, are standing on shaky ground.


JW

[unknown soldier]

The early church’s willingness to endure persecution and risk the possibility of death while preaching the message (which entailed the resurrection) strongly argues for the sincerity of their belief and against the notion they made it all up since people aren’t typically willing to endure such things to protect a fabricated story.

There are other explanations for Christian claims of martyrdom you are not considering. The martyr stories might be myths for one thing. Even if those stories are historical, then the martyrs may have been mentally ill or at least irrational enough to die when they didn't need to. So if the disciples were martyred when they could have chosen to live, then they were irrational, and irrational people are not credible.

I can't think of a disciple that fits every one one of your criteria but in response I will note, firstly, I don’t need such an example to make the argument work.

So you're saying that you need no evidence to back up the premises of the apologetic I presented in the OP. That apologetic assumes there are examples of disciples who fit the six criteria I listed in the OP. For that argument to be sound, its premises must be true.

...in the event you may be interested, we do have relatively early historical evidence that the church was persecuted and risked the possibility of death.

I know that the New Testament, Acts in particular, includes some martyr stories or stories about persecution of the church. Those stories offer no evidence for any Christians martyred in the manner that the apologetic assumes.

Outside the New Testament near the end of the first century (c. 95 AD) Clement relays the martyrdom of Peter (and Paul).

”But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” - 1 Clement 5.

Again, this testimony does not provide us with the evidence needed to establish that the apologetic's premises are true. It does provide evidence that the early church found martyr stories to be useful propaganda, a practice that is obviously with us to this day.

I'll need to end this post with reiterating that you have offered no evidence at all for the martyr claims that the apologetic makes. Without that evidence, the apologetic fails. We know of no disciples who died for belief in the resurrection.

[unknown soldier]

I agree it doesnt prove the resurrection happened it, but its not an element to be ignored or brushed aside as insignificant.

Then the martyr stories of all religions should not be ignored or brushed aside as insignificant. Do you fairly consider all those martyr stories as told by the Roman Catholic Church? There's plenty of them.

Those,that argue the first century Christians that lent their testimony to the resurection were all suffering from some kind of mass delusion that compelled them to desire to be expelled from their communities, derided persecuted and even killed, are standing on shaky ground.

In that case you stand on shaky ground if you deny the testimony of Lúcia dos Santos and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto who say they saw the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1917 at the Cova da Iria, in Fátima, Portugal. They were arrested and even threatened with death if they did not recant their testimony, yet they held firm. They couldn't have been suffering from mass delusion, now could they?

So JW, will you take back your argument here, or will you start shopping for a rosary?

Oh, and some actual evidence for Christian martyrdom in the first century would be helpful.

And here's a good book to read up on this subject:

[Athetotheist]

Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite....there are plenty of leaders whose followers will die for them.

There are also stories of pre-Christian beliefs producing martyrs in Christian times. Iron Skegge, Raud the Strong and others are said to have undergone torture and death for their old beliefs in newly-Christianized Scandinavia, and there are probably similar accounts from around the world. Martyrdom seems fairly universal.

[unknown soldier]

Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite....there are plenty of leaders whose followers will die for them.

And in many cases people who follow religious leaders like that will be convinced that those leaders were genuine prophets with magical powers. So yes, people might well go to their deaths believing that a lie is true. That they will die for what they know is a lie is just one small step away from that.

There are also stories of pre-Christian beliefs producing martyrs in Christian times. Iron Skegge, Raud the Strong and others are said to have undergone torture and death for their old beliefs in newly-Christianized Scandinavia, and there are probably similar accounts from around the world. Martyrdom seems fairly universal.

Martyrdom may be so popular because it works well as a propaganda tool. We see evidence for that effectiveness in Christian apologetics. Personally, all I see martyrdom as is that it shows just how irrational people can be. I wouldn't choose to die for anything whether it was true or false.

Finally, did you notice that no apologist will for one moment see martyrdom as evidence for any religion except their own? If the same evidence of martyrs is presented to them for some other religion, then they immediately see the fallacies in that argument.

[JehovahsWitness]

I agree it doesnt prove the resurrection happened it, but its not an element to be ignored or brushed aside as insignificant.

Then the martyr stories of all religions should not be ignored or brushed aside as insignificant. Do you fairly consider all those martyr stories as told by the Roman Catholic Church? There's plenty of them.

Or course I do. Why do you ask?

[JehovahsWitness]

Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite....there are plenty of leaders whose followers will die for them.

Fictional leaders or real leaders?

At the very least this presents an argument that Jesus of Nazareth was not a fabrication dreamnt up in the mind of an amalgamation of first century novelists. I'm not suggesting you personally have proposer this notion but some have. Pointing to the power of drugs, propaganda , mind control or the FBI at least supports the conclusion that there was indeed a very powerful, or a series of powerful, lifechanging historical events that deeply effected a group of people. We are no closer (or further away) from establishing what said event was.

Anyone claiming the first century resurrection testimonies where the result of a mass hysteria induced by prolonged exposure to propaganda, drugs and/or trauma based mind control, will now have to offer evidence to support such a notion. Otherwise the reference to such events is superficial at best or at the worst irrelevant.




JW

[JehovahsWitness]

I wouldn't choose to die for anything whether it was true or false.

If your attitude is typical, then it supports the argument that martyres (including the early Christian martyrs) are exceptional. The only question then is why? Logically it was either because they had lost their minds or they had witnessed something to change their minds. In the absence of evidence that they were suffering from some kind of psychosis, your statement only goes to support the notion that the first century resurrection testimonies could indeed be based on a historical life changing event. An event so powerful that it overroad the completely natural desire for self preservation

If on the other hand your attitude is atypical (which I suspect it is) it only illustrates that the person that is willing to preserve his life at any cost, ultimately cannot be trusted with matters of import. Having principles that one is willing, not just to live by but to die for is (again in the the absense of psychosis), the basis for convincing some one is sincere. In short if early Christians were willing to die for their gospel it raises the calibre of their moral fibre above those that worship at the alter of the God of self preservation. We have better reason to trust the former than the latter.