Would someone die for a lie?

[Tcg]

.

A common apologetic is that the authors of the N.T. wouldn't die for what they knew was a lie. One problem is that perhaps other than Paul we don't really know who those authors were. The other problem is that we don't really know that they did die for that reason. Well, yet another problem is that perhaps people do die for a lie. My primary query though is that couldn't people die for what they are mistaken about?

Maybe Peter, who I think is recorded in the Bible as dying for his faith, was mistaken. He (assuming the story is true) didn't necessarily die for a lie. Maybe he was simply wrong about the Jesus story.

Couldn't someone die for what they are mistaken about? And if they could, isn't it a weak apologetic to claim someone wouldn't chose to die because of it?


Tcg

[historia]

I was thinking that one of the 12 disciples' death was documented in the Bible.

Maybe you're thinking of John 21:17-19:

He said to him the third time, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Very truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go." (He said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.) After this he said to him, "Follow me."

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

Sorry, but I have not read all the responses, so I am not sure if I may be repeating someone.

A common apologetic is that the authors of the N.T. wouldn't die for what they knew was a lie.

I think it would be more accurate to say, "the Apostles would not have died for what they would have known to be a lie" as opposed to the "authors of the NT". The reason I make this distinction is, Mark, and Luke were not Apostles, which would mean, we do not know if they would have claimed to have been eyewitnesses of Jesus alive after death, on top of the fact, we have no evidence of how they would have died. With that being said, we do have very good evidence the author of Luke, and Acts, traveled with Paul, and would have been close associates with the original Apostles.

One problem is that perhaps other than Paul we don't really know who those authors were.

Okay, well let's start with what you are willing to give which is Paul. I think we can know with a great amount of certainty that Paul would have been alive at the time of the death of Jesus. Paul mentions in his letters, one by the name of Luke who is a traveling companion. In a letter we have in which the author clearly identifies himself as the "Apostle Paul", it is clear that Paul was imprisoned as he wrote, and in this letter, he just so happens to mention in passing to his audience who is Timothy, "only Luke is left with me". We can know with absolute certainty the author of "The Actions of the Apostles", and the author of "The Gospel of Luke" are indeed the same exact author. In the second letter addressed to Theophilus, the author begins to use the words, "we" and "us" to describe events as if the author is actually there to witness the events recorded. It also just so happens the author of the second letter addressed to Theophilus, ends this letter with Paul being under arrest.

The point I am making is, folks will tend to believe what they would rather believe. If one would rather believe Christianity to be true, then they will find reasons to believe it to be true. If there are those who want to believe Christianity to be false, or to doubt, then there will be reasons for one to find these reasons. However, it is a fact we have very good evidence of who the author of Luke, and Acts would be, and for one to deny this fact, is for one to be living in a "fantasy world". This is not at all to suggest there would be no reason at all to doubt who the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been, rather, it is to insist, those who want to insist, there would be no facts, evidence, or reason to believe the author of the two letters addressed to Theophilus, was indeed Luke, who would have traveled with Paul, would have been alive at the time of the events recorded, would have known and conversed with the original Apostles, are living in a "fantasy world" who would rather believe, what they would rather believe.

The other problem is that we don't really know that they did die for that reason.

What we can know with certainty is, Christianity exists, and it exists for a reason. It exists based upon the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the lie of the resurrection, or those who were mistaken. If there is evidence the reports of the Resurrection was a lie, I would like to hear the evidence? If there is evidence is based upon those who were mistaken, I would like to hear the evidence? What I cannot imagine is one who would like to suggest, there is no evidence for the Resurrection?

The other problem is that we don't really know that they did die for that reason.

To say, "we don't really know that they did die for that reason" would be a fact. But to deny the fact that we do indeed have evidence as to why they did die, would be to deny reality, because we do indeed have this evidence. So then, this evidence we have is based upon a lie, those who were mistaken, or those who were deceived. Again, the bottom line is, folks will believe what they would rather believe. However, for those to deny there would be reasons to believe one way or the other, would be those who demonstrate those who would rather believe what they would rather believe, along with those who deny reality.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #12]


That's very good and I want to give it more attention, but immediately I see a problem of linking Paul's letters (which I credit up to Philemon, say) with the gospels and Acts which I do not credit. Say that Paul says that someone called Luke was with him, or even says who this Luke is. That does not make him the writer of the gospel onto which that name was foisted, let alone the additional book of Acts which is demonstrably a biographical novel, loosely based on Paul's letters. And 'Luke's gospel is demonstrably dubious as an eyewitness record.

You merely have to look at the private chat that Paul had with James and Peter in Jerusalem that is turned into a full senate house debate with the Paulinists - with the disciples on their side, and the Jews of the circumcision on the other side - to see that 'Luke' was invention. So the 'evidence' is actually against crediting the gospel record or using them to interpret anything about Paul or using Paul to validate the gospels.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #13]

Listen, it seems clear you have found reasons to believe what it is you would rather believe, which is exactly my point. However, for one to go on to say, there would be no facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Luke who traveled with Paul was indeed the Luke who authored both the letters addressed to Theophilus, would be one who is not willing to face reality, and demonstrates clearly one who simply believes what they would rather believe.

I would be more than happy to debate some of the points you make above, but you will have to clarify some of the things you are saying, because I do not want to waste my time when I am not sure what it is you mean. As an example, you say,

I see a problem of linking Paul's letters (which I credit up to Philemon, say)

I am not sure but you seem to be saying the only letter you give Paul credit as being the author would be the letter to Philemon? But as I say, I do not want to waste my time if this is not what you are saying.

Say that Paul says that someone called Luke was with him, or even says who this Luke is. That does not make him the writer of the gospel onto which that name was foisted,

Here is an example of what I am talking about. You use the word, "foisted" as if there would be no reason whatsoever to believe the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have indeed been Luke. While there may be reasons to question who the author may have been, it is quite another for one to suggest the name has been imposed, unwelcomed, or unnecessary. For one to make such statements demonstrates one who is not willing to face reality.

let alone the additional book of Acts which is demonstrably a biographical novel, loosely based on Paul's letters.

You use the word "demonstrably" here, and you need to get busy demonstrating what it is you claim is demonstratable. If I am correct, you seem to be suggesting the only letter we have which Paul would have authored would have been Philemon, and you now seem to have the author of Acts, relying upon letters which Paul did not write. Moreover, exactly how many copies of the letters of Paul do you suppose there were at the time, and you have one who has all the letters of Paul available in order to write a novel based upon these letters, going on to use the words, "we" and "us" as if the author was actually there to witness the events? Yeah! You need to get to demonstrating what it is you claim to be demonstratable.

I would like to go on to point out that, the author of Acts begins this letter describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem. However, when Paul comes on the scene, and begins his journeys. for some strange reason we only begin to hear of the actions of Paul, and do not hear of the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with them again. Can you imagine why this would be? Of course you can. Because you see, if the author would have been along with Paul, there would be no way the author could have reported on the actions of those in Jerusalem because he would not have been there to witness the events, and could have only reported upon what Paul was doing.

And 'Luke's gospel is demonstrably dubious as an eyewitness record.

And here we go again using the word, "demonstrably" along with the word, "dubious". And again, you need to get busy demonstrating what it is you claim to be demonstratable. No one is claiming the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been an eyewitness. In fact, the author himself does not claim to be, but rather reports to Theophilus that he had, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning", as if he would have been alive at the time of the events to make such an investigation. But again, you need to get to demonstrating how the first letter to Theophilus would be unreliable, and suspect. If you cannot demonstrate, what it is you claim to be demonstratable, then what you in fact demonstrate, is one who simply believes, what they would rather believe. Again, it is one thing for one to make the case there may be reasons to doubt the reports. It is quite another for one to claim the case is "demonstrable".

You merely have to look at the private chat that Paul had with James and Peter in Jerusalem that is turned into a full senate house debate with the Paulinists - with the disciples on their side, and the Jews of the circumcision on the other side - to see that 'Luke' was invention.

Here again is where you will have to explain yourself more clearly because I cannot comment on something I am unclear about?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #13]

Listen, it seems clear you have found reasons to believe what it is you would rather believe, which is exactly my point. However, for one to go on to say, there would be no facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Luke who traveled with Paul was indeed the Luke who authored both the letters addressed to Theophilus, would be one who is not willing to face reality, and demonstrates clearly one who simply believes what they would rather believe.

I would be more than happy to debate some of the points you make above, but you will have to clarify some of the things you are saying, because I do not want to waste my time when I am not sure what it is you mean. As an example, you say,

I see a problem of linking Paul's letters (which I credit up to Philemon, say)

I am not sure but you seem to be saying the only letter you give Paul credit as being the author would be the letter to Philemon? But as I say, I do not want to waste my time if this is not what you are saying.

Say that Paul says that someone called Luke was with him, or even says who this Luke is. That does not make him the writer of the gospel onto which that name was foisted,

Here is an example of what I am talking about. You use the word, "foisted" as if there would be no reason whatsoever to believe the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have indeed been Luke. While there may be reasons to question who the author may have been, it is quite another for one to suggest the name has been imposed, unwelcomed, or unnecessary. For one to make such statements demonstrates one who is not willing to face reality.

let alone the additional book of Acts which is demonstrably a biographical novel, loosely based on Paul's letters.

You use the word "demonstrably" here, and you need to get busy demonstrating what it is you claim is demonstratable. If I am correct, you seem to be suggesting the only letter we have which Paul would have authored would have been Philemon, and you now seem to have the author of Acts, relying upon letters which Paul did not write. Moreover, exactly how many copies of the letters of Paul do you suppose there were at the time, and you have one who has all the letters of Paul available in order to write a novel based upon these letters, going on to use the words, "we" and "us" as if the author was actually there to witness the events? Yeah! You need to get to demonstrating what it is you claim to be demonstratable.

I would like to go on to point out that, the author of Acts begins this letter describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem. However, when Paul comes on the scene, and begins his journeys. for some strange reason we only begin to hear of the actions of Paul, and do not hear of the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with them again. Can you imagine why this would be? Of course you can. Because you see, if the author would have been along with Paul, there would be no way the author could have reported on the actions of those in Jerusalem because he would not have been there to witness the events, and could have only reported upon what Paul was doing.

And 'Luke's gospel is demonstrably dubious as an eyewitness record.

And here we go again using the word, "demonstrably" along with the word, "dubious". And again, you need to get busy demonstrating what it is you claim to be demonstratable. No one is claiming the author of the letters to Theophilus would have been an eyewitness. In fact, the author himself does not claim to be, but rather reports to Theophilus that he had, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning", as if he would have been alive at the time of the events to make such an investigation. But again, you need to get to demonstrating how the first letter to Theophilus would be unreliable, and suspect. If you cannot demonstrate, what it is you claim to be demonstratable, then what you in fact demonstrate, is one who simply believes, what they would rather believe. Again, it is one thing for one to make the case there may be reasons to doubt the reports. It is quite another for one to claim the case is "demonstrable".

You merely have to look at the private chat that Paul had with James and Peter in Jerusalem that is turned into a full senate house debate with the Paulinists - with the disciples on their side, and the Jews of the circumcision on the other side - to see that 'Luke' was invention.

Here again is where you will have to explain yourself more clearly because I cannot comment on something I am unclear about?

Ok. The point is that if Luke is not an eyewitness (or disciple) he is reliably reporting what happened. The point is that this is dubious and on demonstrable evidence. You call for reasons. Correctly. First Acts is clearly a follow up to Luke's gospel. Clearly Luke knew this sequel was to come because he alters the angelic message so that the disciples stay in Jerusalem and don't go to Galilee. I can guess why. His Acts is clearly based on Pauline material (plus some Josephus- as is the case with the gospel) as in Paul escaping the Nabatean Army being changed to escaping a murder plot by the Jews, Paul's conversion being (understandably) placed between persecuting the Christians and joining them, yet Paul says nothing of this and rather argues out his reasoning in Romans, despite the hint that 'a man (himself) went to heaven to hear it all from Jesus. The council of Jerusalem is absurdly inflated and the partiality of Peter and James is not credible as Peter echoes Paul's idea that the law was an imposition on the Jews (a burden our fathers were unable to bear) that no Jew would say, but only a Christian who had read Paul would say, and James misquotes Hosea in a way no Jew could have done.

The evidence at least is that "Luke" worked with existing material - the synoptic gospel, Paul's letters and Josephus. He borrows Josephus on the death of Herod Agrippa, but changed the Owl omen into an avenging angel, because Luke is a Christian and it all has to be rewritten to fit Christianity. Luke also has Gamaliel (Acts 2, I recall) talk that confirms that the days of the census was at the time of the revolt of Judas the Galilean (6/7 AD) which is evidence that he was using Josephus. His sources were the existing gospel, Paul's letters and Josephus. On Evidence. He lets it be guessed that he got his information from reliable sources and never mind how he adapts it. Demonstrably.

I hope this is getting clear, because if you aren't getting it I have to wonder whether you know the subject matter or want to know it.

[christian001]

The disciples would not die for a lie, if they knew it was a lie. It is possible for a person to die for a lie because he thought that it was true. But this could not have applied to the disciples. They were there in Jesus' time and would not have been mistaken about whether Jesus resurrected or not. https://www.explainchristianity.com/gos ... lieved-in/

[Tcg]

The disciples would not die for a lie, if they knew it was a lie.

How can you possibly know that. I remember a movie, although not the title, where a man died for a lie. To tell the truth would have cost his loved ones a loss of their livelihood. It was fictional, but of course there are reasons a person would die for a lie.

It is possible for a person to die for a lie because he thought that it was true. But this could not have applied to the disciples. They were there in Jesus' time and would not have been mistaken about whether Jesus resurrected or not. https://www.explainchristianity.com/gos ... lieved-in/

This includes too many assumptions to be taken as a fact-based assertion. We have no idea what the disciples (if there were any) saw or didn't see. And, they could have most definitely been wrong about whether or not Jesus resurrected.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

Would someone die for a lie?

Ashley Babbitt did.

I reckon folks don't so much die for a lie, as they fall victim to em.