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 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?

[The Tanager]

However I don't think it is doing your case any good to make this about taking personal miff as some supposed accusations of mine.

I’m not making this about taking personal miff, I’m simply responding to why that specific part of what you said wasn’t accurate.

[TRANSPONDER]

However I don't think it is doing your case any good to make this about taking personal miff as some supposed accusations of mine.

I’m not making this about taking personal miff, I’m simply responding to why that specific part of what you said wasn’t accurate.

whether or not, your post does not address or acknowledge that I responded to your response, really showing and not disagreeing that the two arguments are different (in what was allegedly thrown at the disciples) but the argument was the same one (they put up with it rather than admit it was a lie - so it wasn't) and based on Paul's saying he persecuted them while the martyrdom stories are weaker evidence.

Steelmanning, as I said. But I responded as I did before. Persecution for political reasons is as valid as for claiming a resurrection. I recall I added some other points. Shouldn't you address those rather than pointing a finger at me for pointing a finger at you (perhaps wrongly).

[The Tanager]

Steelmanning, as I said. But I responded as I did before. Persecution for political reasons is as valid as for claiming a resurrection. I recall I added some other points. Shouldn't you address those rather than pointing a finger at me for pointing a finger at you (perhaps wrongly).

It's not about me and you, but about clarifying what my claim actually is. As to addressing the other points, I felt like I'd already addressed all the points you made. Which ones do you feel were new that I didn't previously address?

[TRANSPONDER]

Steelmanning, as I said. But I responded as I did before. Persecution for political reasons is as valid as for claiming a resurrection. I recall I added some other points. Shouldn't you address those rather than pointing a finger at me for pointing a finger at you (perhaps wrongly).

It's not about me and you, but about clarifying what my claim actually is. As to addressing the other points, I felt like I'd already addressed all the points you made. Which ones do you feel were new that I didn't previously address?

I know what your claim actually is, but mine was showing that the claim was essentially that same, as i pointed out, and that your argument that the reason the disciples were persecuted (which is more credible than the martyrdoms) was because they would not deny they saw the gospel resurrection - not that they believed in a sort of resurrection, which I think they did. But it was not the one in the gospels, which are not credible because of contradictions. That's the case, beyond the one I set out that the 'persecutions' might be political as much as about a miracle claim. Indeed, even the threat to return on clouds with a marching band might be seen as a seditious movement.

The point is that persecutions do not show the resurrection - claim to be true, and there are reasons to doubt that the disciples' resurrection visions were anything like the gospel ones.

[The Tanager]

I know what your claim actually is, but mine was showing that the claim was essentially that same, as i pointed out,

White similar, they aren’t essentially the same as to where if one fails the other does.

and that your argument that the reason the disciples were persecuted (which is more credible than the martyrdoms) was because they would not deny they saw the gospel resurrection - not that they believed in a sort of resurrection, which I think they did. But it was not the one in the gospels, which are not credible because of contradictions. That's the case, beyond the one I set out that the 'persecutions' might be political as much as about a miracle claim. Indeed, even the threat to return on clouds with a marching band might be seen as a seditious movement.

I responded to each of those points (except the very last, which I didn’t see from you in a prior post). I saw no good reason to think two different kinds of resurrection are talked about. I don’t think the differences in the accounts (even if they are true contradictions) make the accounts non-credible on every claim made, and while the claims could be politically threatening to the Jewish leaders, it’s because of the content of the claim. The imagery of the clouds, to me, has greater echoes of God’s glory in Exodus, 2 Chronicles, etc. of having God’s power and glory on their side.

The point is that persecutions do not show the resurrection - claim to be true, and there are reasons to doubt that the disciples' resurrection visions were anything like the gospel ones.

I never said the persecutions prove the resurrection true. They are part of the case for the resurrection being true and strong marks against the theory that the apostles’ made the resurrection up.

[TRANSPONDER]

I know what your claim actually is, but mine was showing that the claim was essentially that same, as i pointed out,

White similar, they aren’t essentially the same as to where if one fails the other does.

and that your argument that the reason the disciples were persecuted (which is more credible than the martyrdoms) was because they would not deny they saw the gospel resurrection - not that they believed in a sort of resurrection, which I think they did. But it was not the one in the gospels, which are not credible because of contradictions. That's the case, beyond the one I set out that the 'persecutions' might be political as much as about a miracle claim. Indeed, even the threat to return on clouds with a marching band might be seen as a seditious movement.

I responded to each of those points (except the very last, which I didn’t see from you in a prior post). I saw no good reason to think two different kinds of resurrection are talked about. I don’t think the differences in the accounts (even if they are true contradictions) make the accounts non-credible on every claim made, and while the claims could be politically threatening to the Jewish leaders, it’s because of the content of the claim. The imagery of the clouds, to me, has greater echoes of God’s glory in Exodus, 2 Chronicles, etc. of having God’s power and glory on their side.

The point is that persecutions do not show the resurrection - claim to be true, and there are reasons to doubt that the disciples' resurrection visions were anything like the gospel ones.

I never said the persecutions prove the resurrection true. They are part of the case for the resurrection being true and strong marks against the theory that the apostles’ made the resurrection up.

The argument is the same - the disciples defied threats of either martyrdom of persecution rather than deny the resurrection. Martyrdom fails straight out of the box as the Martyrdoms look like early church propaganda stories. The persecution variant or related argument has more legs, because we know of persecutions. They were political.

You do well the question about two kinds of resurrection, as it is a bit of a chain of reasoning. The problem was that the contradictions is (or ought to be) reason to see them as separately invented. That is why Mark didn't have anything after the empty tomb. So, supposing there was no resurrection, what about Paul in the One Corinthian? The suspicion comes with seeing how different it is. It looks like a different event. And apparently Peter is the first to see Jesus as it says 'then to the twelve' (Luke adapted his gospel so this happens). Moreover, Paul equates those with a belated vision of his own. It doesn't look to me like seeing Jesus risen walking about, but a vision in his head. Why not to Peter, and then the twelve and all the 500 at once? This is an alternative to the gospels and explains the problems, which saying they are the same event has to ignore.

Thus for all we know, Jesus' body was left in the tomb (I'm easy about his getting a proper burial even after crucifixion) or the disciples took it Matth 28.15. back to Galilee. Thus, if the body didn't rise, what did? The spirit. That would explain everything.

I see no point in pettifogging about what the persecution cane is supposed to prove. It is obvious what it is when presented as a goalpost -shift from 'The disciples would not die for a lie'. to 'The disciples would not be persecuted for a lie'. I think they believed a resurrection, bui NOT the one described in the gospels (or, in the case of Mark. not).

I know that the Pharisee resurrection is of the body, but the Bible (NT) does not preclude spirits shuttling aout in the meantime. John was suggested to be Elijah, returned. I don't expect you to accept this, but you should understand why I reckon it explains everything and how the two kinds of resurrection have a case for them.

[The Tanager]

You do well the question about two kinds of resurrection, as it is a bit of a chain of reasoning. The problem was that the contradictions is (or ought to be) reason to see them as separately invented. That is why Mark didn't have anything after the empty tomb. So, supposing there was no resurrection, what about Paul in the One Corinthian? The suspicion comes with seeing how different it is. It looks like a different event. And apparently Peter is the first to see Jesus as it says 'then to the twelve' (Luke adapted his gospel so this happens). Moreover, Paul equates those with a belated vision of his own. It doesn't look to me like seeing Jesus risen walking about, but a vision in his head. Why not to Peter, and then the twelve and all the 500 at once? This is an alternative to the gospels and explains the problems, which saying they are the same event has to ignore.

I don’t see how the tradition Paul passes on contradicts the gospel traditions. There are differences. Differences aren’t automatically contradictions. The tradition isn’t going to start with women. The gospels don’t claim to give exhaustive lists. I think Paul equates his vision as just as good as theirs, not vice versa. A good bit of the letters to the Corinthians involve Paul defending his apostleship to his audience.