The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #1

Post by 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 popular–level arguments for the resurrection (or ever heard a sermon on the apostles), you’ve 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 weren’t 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?
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #2

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1
"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.
The old "myths don't make martyrs" argument.

In "A History of Pagan Europe" by Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick, there's a page listing a number of Scandinavian Heathens who were put to death by churchmen for refusing to abandon their old beliefs. One has to wonder how that would fit into Josh McDowell's logic.
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?
I'm fairly certain that McDowell readily accepts this about every member of Heaven's Gate.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3270
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1544 times
Been thanked: 1050 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #3

Post by POI »

boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:52 pm 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?
1. Question 3 kinda answers question 1.

2. (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/k ... stles-die/):

'Jesus’ death on the cross, as described in the New Testament, has become one of the most famous events. But what happened to the 12 disciples who were his closest followers? Not as much information has survived about their fates, but here is what’s available from various sources, including the a) New Testament itself, b) apocryphal texts, c) early Christian historians, d) legends and lore.'

a) Using the New Testament, to prove the New Testament, is just as circular as using the Quran to validate their claimed Islamic martyrs located in Chapter 3, Verse 169 (and) Chapter 46, Verse 14.

b) Apocryphal means - '(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.' - Oxford Dictionary

c) A Christian historian will be bias towards their belief, just like a Muslim historian would be towards their beliefs.

D) Legends and lore is most likely the main culprit, as with many growing tales over time. The New Testament Bible was written decades after such claimed events, by way of oral tradition and/or claimed inspiration from god. Repeated story telling leads to fabrication, addition, subtraction, tales, and manipulation. Claims to authors receiving inspiration from god, especially from the anonymous authored sources, rely upon nothing other than faith to be true. Faith is belief in place of, or instead of, evidence.

If willingness to die for belief is the meter stick for it's truth, then the clear winners are radical Islamic extremists.

3. Yes.

4. Same as answer 1.

5. Maybe this is why the writers of the Bible polarized the topic of 'faith'.?.?.?

6. Good question....
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #4

Post by boatsnguitars »

POI wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:58 pm 6. Good question....
Thanks for the answers.
It's the last one that truly interests me. I get that there is hemming and hawing about all the other stuff, and that Apologists will move whatever goal posts they need to not answer the questions honestly. But, to me the critical part is that we can identify clear lies the clergy has spread for generations - knowing they were lying. After all, they knew all the facts, since this is their single, fanatical interest. They knew there was no record of the apostles deaths. They knew Foxe's book of Martyr's was invented stories. Foxe knew he was writing a lie.

I suggest that Christianity is uniquely built on lies by a long list of liars who knew they were lying, starting with Paul, Jesus, Mark, Mark, Luke and John. There is more evidence that they are liars than good, Godly men.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #5

Post by TRANSPONDER »

This has been discussed a couple of times and the conclusion is that (Josh McDowell and his discredited claims aside) there is no reason to believe any of the martyrdoms of the disciples. The only one in the NT is 'Herod' (Herod Agrippa, or maybe Herod Agrippa II) having James (son of Zebedee, not James the Less) killed by the sword. I would not trust Acts, nor the gospel of Luke, for that matter, any further than i could kick it.

So in fact we do not know what the disciples died for as we really don't know what they died from. For all we know, it could have been old age.

Pytine
Student
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2023 4:16 pm
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #6

Post by Pytine »

boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:52 pm 1. To what extent do the deaths of the apostles prove the veracity of the resurrection story?
The martyrdom of the disciples, if true, would only show the martyrs were committed to their cause. It wouldn't prove anything about the truth of the resurrection.
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:52 pm2. Can we trust the accounts of the apostles' deaths as historically accurate, or are they subject to bias and myth-making?
We have some evidence for the death of a few of the apostles. The sources for most of the apostles are very late and not reliable. Even with the few who were killed, there is no good reason to believe that they were killed for their belief in the resurrection. Romans couldn't care less if anyone believed in the resurrection of Jesus. Romans believed that Christians took part in wild orgies, communal incest, and infant cannibalism (drinking the blood and eating the flesh of the son). In addition, the Christians did not worship the Roman gods and they disrupted families. For these reasons, Romans hated the Christians. If someone was killed for being a Christian, no one would care if they recanted their belief in the resurrection. It may seem weird that Romans really believed that Christians ate babies. However, such beliefs still exist today. If you ask any Christian why the genocide of the Canaanites was justified, they will talk about the Canaanites exactly how Romans would talk about Christians.
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:52 pm3. 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?
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:52 pm4. How do we reconcile the apostles' willingness to die for their belief in the resurrection with similar accounts of martyrs in other religions?
People can be strongly convinced of things that are not true.
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:52 pm5. Do contemporary Christians have a responsibility to question the historical accuracy of their religious texts and teachings, or is faith sufficient?
If someone want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible, they should question the reliability of historical texts and not take them on faith alone.
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:52 pm6. If the clergy is lying so easily about this, what are we to believe about their other claims?
I don't think the clergy is often lying. Some of them may lie, but most of them will believe what they say. However, their epistemology is often not sufficient, so we should question their claims.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #7

Post by TRANSPONDER »

It is a nice point that telling the untruth might not be knowingly lying because they have ways of validating it to themselves. It doesn't matter if the claim is invalid - knowingly or they believe it. It is not about shaming or accusing believers, but about considering the claim for validity.
We know how evidence works and there is only one disciple martyred - James son of Zebedee in Acts. Stephen is not one of the disciples and I frankly do not credit Acts at all. Many do and not just churchmen. The road to Damascus is credited just as the exodus was, but I believe that event is fiction invented by the author of Luke, but so many people simply accept it as true.

The stories about Peter martyred as the first pope and all the rest have small credibility. We have a history of Nero executing Christians. But the case for either Paul or Peter being in Rome is based on Acts ending around AD 60 in Rome. But again, this is supposition by the writer. Peter is based on an old tomb that traditionally someone (according to graffiti) associated with Peter. Other martyrdom stories have less even than that.

For all we know, the disciples might have died of old age in Alexandria. We cannot credit the claim of martyrdom. i trust we won't hear the 'claim is true until disproven' fallacy.

User avatar
The Nice Centurion
Sage
Posts: 869
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #8

Post by The Nice Centurion »

Athetotheist wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:12 pm [Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1
"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.
The old "myths don't make martyrs" argument
.
Also an " Appeal to Emotion " argument!.

.
Athetotheist wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:12 pm In "A History of Pagan Europe" by Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick, there's a page listing a number of Scandinavian Heathens who were put to death by churchmen for refusing to abandon their old beliefs. One has to wonder how that would fit into Josh McDowell's logic.
Eyvind Kinrifa was buried alive under hot coals by Holy King Olaf of Norway for not allowing him to get Eyvind get baptized. King Olaf fot nought offered him his friendship and riches beyond comparison, then threated with horrible torture.
Eyvind Kinrifa welcomed the coals, for anything is better than becoming a Christian.

Really a pain in the ass for Christian Historians. They tried to mask their shame by letting Eyvind say before dying that he is a Ghost and therefore unable to become a Christian!
Athetotheist wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:12 pm
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?
I'm fairly certain that McDowell readily accepts this about every member of Heaven's Gate.
The members of Heavens Gate wouldnt die for a lie!

The followers of Heavens Gate Death proves the spaceship!

The followers of Heavens Gate died for the spaceship!
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again🐟

"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon❗"

"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates❗"

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #9

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

First, let me state that I wholeheartedly believe that contemporary Christians have a responsibility to question and explore the accuracy of their religious texts and teachings. The ‘faith’ you have in mind is not sufficient.


Second, I don’t think the majority of Christians are lying about this. Some (like Josh McDowell) note the lack of evidence in this area and some aren’t questioning the accuracy of claims made by other Christians close enough, some Christians make the claims without questioning the sources close enough, but very few are lying about it. Every worldview has people who too easily accept any kind of evidence in their favor, at best, because they have so many other reasons to still think their view makes the most sense and, at worst, through blind faith.

Now, even those who are lying, we must avoid the genetic fallacy in our thinking. Each claim is judged by its merit, not by the person who makes it. The case stands or falls (or remains up in the air) on the evidence for the claim. So, no, rational people don’t reject other claims because some clergy are lying or are wrong about other claims.


Third, Josh McDowell also goes on to say that it’s not about them dying as martyrs. He writes “What is critical is their willingness to suffer for their faith and the lack of a contrary story that any of them recanted.” The earliest Christians were persecuted by Jewish leaders, as well as later by Rome sporadically. And some seem to even be martyred for their beliefs. That belief centers on the resurrection, so, yes, being persecuted for being a Christian would connect back to being persecuted for believing in the resurrection.

Now, of course, this alone doesn’t prove the resurrection is true, but it is a piece one must take into consideration. It is certainly a strong mark against the theory that the apostles made up the lie of resurrection. We aren’t talking about dying for something you believe is true (like many people throughout history have done, including later Christians) here, but being persecuted and possibly dying for something you know is false because you made up the lie (as the original disciples). People don’t withstand that for what they know is a lie unless there is some greater motive at play, which I don’t see in this case. They wouldn’t be getting rich or setting their family up or anything like that.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: The "Apostles Died For the Rez" Lie.

Post #10

Post by boatsnguitars »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:23 am [Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

First, let me state that I wholeheartedly believe that contemporary Christians have a responsibility to question and explore the accuracy of their religious texts and teachings. The ‘faith’ you have in mind is not sufficient.


Second, I don’t think the majority of Christians are lying about this. Some (like Josh McDowell) note the lack of evidence in this area and some aren’t questioning the accuracy of claims made by other Christians close enough, some Christians make the claims without questioning the sources close enough, but very few are lying about it. Every worldview has people who too easily accept any kind of evidence in their favor, at best, because they have so many other reasons to still think their view makes the most sense and, at worst, through blind faith.

Now, even those who are lying, we must avoid the genetic fallacy in our thinking. Each claim is judged by its merit, not by the person who makes it. The case stands or falls (or remains up in the air) on the evidence for the claim. So, no, rational people don’t reject other claims because some clergy are lying or are wrong about other claims.


Third, Josh McDowell also goes on to say that it’s not about them dying as martyrs. He writes “What is critical is their willingness to suffer for their faith and the lack of a contrary story that any of them recanted.” The earliest Christians were persecuted by Jewish leaders, as well as later by Rome sporadically. And some seem to even be martyred for their beliefs. That belief centers on the resurrection, so, yes, being persecuted for being a Christian would connect back to being persecuted for believing in the resurrection.

Now, of course, this alone doesn’t prove the resurrection is true, but it is a piece one must take into consideration. It is certainly a strong mark against the theory that the apostles made up the lie of resurrection. We aren’t talking about dying for something you believe is true (like many people throughout history have done, including later Christians) here, but being persecuted and possibly dying for something you know is false because you made up the lie (as the original disciples). People don’t withstand that for what they know is a lie unless there is some greater motive at play, which I don’t see in this case. They wouldn’t be getting rich or setting their family up or anything like that.
I loved this: " the evidence for the claim"

Can you give evidence for the claim?

Also, if I gave you examples of people recanting their faith - what then?

"Now, of course, this alone doesn’t prove the resurrection is true, but it is a piece one must take into consideration."
So, what does make the resurrection true?
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

Post Reply