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.

[Cathar1950]

Good Post JamesBrown.
You make some good points and I have to agree.
You forgot the talking cross and the angels(men) heads that reach the sky.
Tony Stark has shown that the figures for Christian executions was maybe even less then 1000 in the first 300 years.
I would think Jesus died for political reasons as the kingdom would not separate religion from politics and any king but Herod or Cesare would have been seen as a rebellion against the powers that be. I imagine that is what got the first James killed. Stephan's death does sound a lot like Jesus' death and some even think it is just a retelling of the story of brother James or Jesus.

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.

What would it be if we assume that they are facts?

[Goose]

...My post was not to address whether anyone has been martyred for Jesus--of course they have, and still are today.

OK, you're willing to concede that Christians have been "martyred for Jesus", that Jesus being the resurrected one, yes? This includes the disciples, yes? If not, why would you exclude them when the evidence seems to suggests they were martyred?

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.

Christian martyrs are not more "special" in the sense that they sacrificed more or should be put on a higher pedestal than other martyrs per se. Their strength lies in the fact they would have been in a position to KNOW if they were being persecuted or dying for a lie. You have yet to address this. By continually asserting all martyrs are equal in this regard, you are missing the point. A modern day terrorist, for example, dies for what he believes is the truth. But his is not in a position to KNOW whether it is the truth or not. The disciples, and other witnesses were. There is a difference, whether you choose to acknowledge it, I will leave to you.

Well, can we establish that their deaths were because of what they eyewitnessed?

We don't need to. This is the same unnecessary expectation as before. And besides, that's not what I said. I said:

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

The disciples Christianity would encompass a belief in the risen Jesus, derived from their belief that they witnessed Jesus' resurrected person. Let me put it this way. Why do you think the disciples were running around professing a risen Jesus in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus was crucified for blasphemy? Right under the noses of the people that killed Christ? Kind of stupid, don't you think? Unless, they actually believed they witnessed a resurrected Christ. We need only show that they were persecuted for their faith, that faith is dependant upon a resurrected Christ, it's part of the package. The text is very clear they were persecuted for their faith, their faith was based upon the belief in a resurrected Jesus, therefore they were also persecuted for believing in a resurrected Jesus. If they were killed because of that faith, it is martydom. Therefore they would have also been martyrd for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

Be careful not to lump the small group of resurrection eyewitnesses with the larger group of Christian believers.

Which small group would that be? The 500? How big does a group need to be to be considered large in your opinion?

It's one thing to be martyred for what you believe--it's quite another to be martyred for what you saw.

BINGO!You're catching on.

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.

There are minimal amounts of details or facts that we can accept to make a cogent argument. This is why use logic. To insist that we need every scrap of detail, or verbiage, or every piece of a puzzle so to speak is unwarranted. It's another unnecessary expectation and demonstrates a bias. There is ample evidence in the text of Acts and other writings to lead us to the conclusion that the disciples believed in a resurrected Jesus, they professed this, it caused them to be persecuted by the Jews and others, and it probably lead to their demise. I don't think there are many that would deny that line of reasoning based upon the evidence.

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.

In the 21st century in a land of free speech, I'd agree. However, that is NOT the cultural back drop we have with the 1st C early Christian church. Apparently, preaching blasphemy around Jerusalem got one in deep doo-doo in the 1st Century. I think it even got someone crucified if memory serves, now who was that again...

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?

Skewing analogous models in your favour to make your point is a weak argument. It demonstrates that you wish to argue outside the existing evidence that we have. Why do wish to do this? Do you not LIKE the evidence?

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.

Why try to come up with other reasons for their execution? What does the evidence that we do have seem to be suggesting?

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.

Ah, yes. When the sceptic doesn't like what the bible says, just say the Bible is biased so we can't trust it anyway. (but you were more than happy to reference Acts and the Bible earlier to support your argument). Click. Click...I think you've run out of ammunition and are resorting to throwing red-herrings at me.

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?

Well let's have a look. Acts chapter 6 tells us Stephen was accused of blasphemy:

8Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. 9Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia. These men began to argue with Stephen, 10but they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke.
11Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, "We have heard Stephen speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God."
12So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. 13They produced false witnesses, who testified, "This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. 14For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us."
15All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel.(NIV)

Stephen then proceeds to recite almost the entire Old Testament and we get to this part:

51"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."
54When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.
59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.(NIV)

Apparently, it wasn't false charges in the eyes of the Jews. Stephen was accused of committing blasphemy for professing Christ. Stephen was clearly and willingly professing Christ to his own demise, no recanting there, my friend. There is no way, Stephen couldn't have known he would very likely be killed for his remarks. Remember Jesus? Stephen a Hero? Nah. Martyr? Yes.

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

Well again, were they persecuted for their beliefs, or because they had observed certain facts?

What facts would those have been? The resurrection of Jesus, perhaps? If they weren't persecuted for their beliefs, why does the text say what it does? It says arrested some that belonged to the church. The church at that time meant the body of believers (there were no cathedrals yet). Believers in a resurrected Christ. The next verse says Acts12:1-3:

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. 3When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also.

Now, why do you think it pleased the Jews? Why didn't the Jews like the Christians? What does the evidence seem to suggest considering what we know about Jesus, the Jews, crucifixions...

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.

That's all we need to know. That makes James a martyr! I am not arguing that ALL the disciples were killed BECAUSE they were eyewitnesses. I am arguing that James was killed for his faith, that faith being dependant upon witnessing Jesus resurrected. It's a logical arguement given the context of the times and events.

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.

Beyond an argument against biblical inerrancy and arguing against what the evidence suggests in context, what do YOU have?

We know enough to know the disciples had an experience that turned them from a bunch of snivelling, disbanded, unorganised, cowards into a force to be reckoned with, in a matter of days. Despite the threat of persecution and possible death. We don't need to argue for ALL the disciples to have been martyred, only that they were willing to die. They evidence seems to suggest this.

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?

It has nothing specifically to do with Peter being an eyewitness. But, it does show that Peter preached a consistent message with that of Jesus. Peter even convinced the wives and concubines of powerful men to abstain so they could worship God. Even though Peter would probably be persecuted for this. The question is, why did Peter maintain this message if he didn't believe that Jesus had some authority beyond His life on earth? Why preach a message that will get you in trouble if the one that gave you the message didn't have some serious credentials, like a resurrection for example. Peter must have believed Jesus was more than just a sage wondering the Judean countryside. What could have caused Peter to risk death in order to get the message out?

BTW, you're the one that brought up the Acts of Peter and asserted that it...

clearly indicates he was executed for political reasons, not religious

I was pointing out that your assertion wasn't necessarily correct.

I also gave you much earlier(than the Acts of Peter) evidence from 1 Clement 5 that seems to show Peter and Paul were martyred. But you've conveniently cut that out and ignored it. Didn't like that piece of evidence, huh? So you just ignored it? I'll give it again in case you missed it.

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.

What do think "borne his testimony [and] went to his appointed place of glory" means? What was Peter's consistent testimony we find in Acts? The resurrection of Jesus and His status as the Christ. Sweep it under the rug if you must, but that doesn't make it disappear.

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?

I don't know. You tell me. What is YOUR criteria? It seems to be, as long as the source suits your argument, use it. When it doesn't, question its reliability.

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.

It proves they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. LOL. It also shows a dislike for Christians. But you are correct that it doesn't prove Jesus was resurrected. No one is saying that.

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?

In a sense I'm part of branch of Judaism already. The one that believes Jesus was the Messiah.

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 behaviour, do we just pick the one that supports our position? Mohammed changed his behaviour 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 behaviour after intense study of the Bible and is now proud to call himself a happy atheist. People change, sometimes dramatically, for countless reasons.

Cop-out. Give me your BEST reason the disciples changed their behaviour after the alleged appearances of the resurrected Jesus. They went from cowards to heroes almost over night. You must have something better than a smoke screen with Mohammed at al. C'mon, give me your best shot, let's see if it holds any water.

Christianity has strength in that Jesus' 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.

Some of them probably did have some initial doubts, the text does indicate this. That would be only human, yes? The real question is not whether they initially doubted, but whether they at some point believed. The text seems to indicate they did.

As a side note, this is an inadvertent demonstration that the Gospels were not biased religious propaganda. It's the principle of embarrassment. Why would they include embarrassing information about themselves if it was a piece of propaganda intended to deceive by putting the best case forward?

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.

No I don't think it is. Laying down one's life for the benefit of others is not suicide. Suicide is a selfish act, with selfish motives.

Suicide (from Latin suit caedere, to kill oneself) is the willful act of killing oneself. Suicide can also refer to an individual who has killed him or herself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide Jesus did NOT take His own life.

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.

OK, your opinion is noted, but our OPINION is of no value in determining if the disciples were martyred. Fleeing a city where the citizens are bent on killing you is a good idea, yes? Why does that count against the disciples? In those cases of escaping from prison, what does the text tell us? It tells us they were freed with assistance.

But, it's good to know you believe that Jesus is at least "noteworthy". That's a step in the right direction. You are dodging a principle here. Despite your low opinion of the disciples, they were in a position to know what they believed was the truth. As we've already discussed, dieing for a belief doesn't mean that person is in a position to know that belief is true. However, the disciples were in the position to know if it was a lie.

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.

This seems more like a rant than an actual argument so I'll leave it alone. It's also a false dichotomy to say Christianity should have it one way or the other. Why can't there be a third option where we get both? BTW, who's trying to convince? You either see it and accept it or you don't. It's no skin off my nose either way.

James was a sceptic before the resurrection appearances.

But this passage recounts that he was stoned for breaking Jewish law, not for his beliefs,

What law do you think he broke that would warrant a death by stoning? Too many parking tickets? Or perhaps blasphemy, like Stephen? Blasphemy of declaring Jesus as the Christ. How did James come to believe Jesus was the Christ if not by the resurrection? This seems to be verified by the source you've given in Hegesippus. That's two sources confirming James martydom.

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.

Thank you for providing a source that confirms James died by stoning and believing in the resurrection of Christ and affirming Christ's divinity.

And he[James] replied that He[Jesus] was the Saviour. In Consequence of this answer, some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects before mentioned did not believe, either in a resurrection or in the coming of One to requite every man according to his works; but those who did believe, believed because of James.

I think you need to read the text. It shows James believed in a resurrected Jesus. The Pharisees were trying to get James to denounce Jesus as resurrected and the Christ because people were believing BECAUSE of James's testimony. The Pharisees plan didn't work. James affirmed Jesus status as the Christ. So the Pharisees killed him. A martyrs death!

And so he[James] suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ.

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

Here is a key question for you. What made Jesus the Christ in the eyes of the disciples?The answer: the resurrection. Remember, the Jews were expecting a nation and military leader. Not some pacifist wondering around preaching love your enemy. What could have caused James who was a sceptic of his brother's(i.e. Jesus) claims before the resurrection, to change his mind and profess Jesus as the messiah?

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.

Your points are taken out of context to the text. Jame's belief in the resurrection is noted in the text. Read it.

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?

You tell me. We're the pagans in a position to know that their beliefs were true?

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.

If it's pointless, why were you referencing stories from the Bible?

My issue is with the fallacious use of special pleading, arguing that Christian martyrs are of a higher value than any other martyrs.

It's not about value per se. It's about credibility in the sense of knowing whether one is being persecuted for a lie. I'll say this one more time, the disciples were in a position to know if they were being persecuted or dying for a lie. Religions with martyrs that do not have this are not the same as the early Christian apostles, i.e the witnesses to Christ's resurrection. Therefore it is not special pleading.

You find me another set of "disciples" from another religion that were in a position to know if their belief was true or not, that were willingly to endure persecution and even death for their belief, and I'll take the claim seriously. If I find it at least meets or exceeds the claims and evidence of those we find in Christianity, I'll convert. Scout's honour.

[Goose]

Good Post JamesBrown.
You make some good points and I have to agree.
You forgot the talking cross and the angels(men) heads that reach the sky.
Tony Stark has shown that the figures for Christian executions was maybe even less then 1000 in the first 300 years.
I would think Jesus died for political reasons as the kingdom would not separate religion from politics and any king but Herod or Cesare would have been seen as a rebellion against the powers that be. I imagine that is what got the first James killed. Stephan's death does sound a lot like Jesus' death and some even think it is just a retelling of the story of brother James or Jesus.

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.

What would it be if we assume that they are facts?

Oh, Oh, Oh... I know this one! It would be begging the the big Q. That's why I worded it as I did.

Cathar, is this all you have? I spent time putting together a post and that's it from you? Give JamesBrown a pat on the back, throw in a little speculation and answer one question with another question.

How's the view from the peanut gallery? :yapyap:

[acamp1]

Goose-

Your arrogance is unbecoming to a follower of Christ.

And the reason "our" side (no, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian) quotes the bible in arguments is because "your" side refuses to acknowledge anything else as evidence.

A

[Goose]

Hi amap1

Goose-

Your arrogance is unbecoming to a follower of Christ.

Sticks and stones...

If I've said anything you feel is inappropriate, feel free to report it to a moderator.

I thnk you're mistaking an attempt by me to present an argument AND have some fun as arrogance.

I wouldn't worry about Cathar and JamesBrown, they look like they can handle themselves pretty well.

[acamp1]

Indeed they do handle themselves well.

But that darned (un-Christ-like) attitude of superiority so common among fundamentalists makes it rather difficult to take their words seriously.

Blessed are the superior and arrogant... for they shall inherit the earth.

NOT.

[acamp1]

(original message mistakenly posted in this forum - moving)

[JamesBrown]

OK, you're willing to concede that Christians have been "martyred for Jesus", that Jesus being the resurrected one, yes? This includes the disciples, yes? If not, why would you exclude them when the evidence seems to suggests they were martyred?

Again, what evidence? For James' death we don't know many details. For Peter's death we have political elements alongside tall-tale absurdities. That's about it. Do we know anything about the deaths of James, son of Alphaeus? Thaddeus? Simon the Zealot? The short answer is no. But they are lumped in with statements like, "10 of the 12 were tortured and killed."

Christian martyrs are not more "special" in the sense that they sacrificed more or should be put on a higher pedestal than other martyrs per se.

Tentex25 disagrees with you, as per his original post. Perhaps you should be arguing with him.

I'm always leery of the "would've" statements, ie, "Paul would've known all the details of Jesus' life because he lived in Palestine at the time." "Would've" statements are too often based on speculation, made by people desperate to support their own case. I'm all too familiar with them because I catch myself making them all the time.

So when I see someone saying, "The disciples would've never preached about Jesus under the threat of persecution unless they knew it was all true," I question that idea. As I said over and over, I have no doubt that followers of Christ have been persecuted and killed for their beliefs. What I question is the idea that the disciples would've not done what they did for a lie (I've never hinted that any of them were willfully lying, or trying to pull a con).

Their strength lies in the fact they would have been in a position to KNOW if they were being persecuted or dying for a lie.

Case in point.

The disciples Christianity would encompass a belief in the risen Jesus, derived from their belief that they witnessed Jesus' resurrected person. Let me put it this way. Why do you think the disciples were running around professing a risen Jesus in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus was crucified for blasphemy? Right under the noses of the people that killed Christ? Kind of stupid, don't you think? Unless, they actually believed they witnessed a resurrected Christ. We need only show that they were persecuted for their faith, that faith is dependant upon a resurrected Christ, it's part of the package. The text is very clear they were persecuted for their faith, their faith was based upon the belief in a resurrected Jesus, therefore they were also persecuted for believing in a resurrected Jesus. If they were killed because of that faith, it is martydom. Therefore they would have also been martyrd for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

I've bolded your key ideas here.

Ah, yes. When the sceptic doesn't like what the bible says, just say the Bible is biased so we can't trust it anyway. (but you were more than happy to reference Acts and the Bible earlier to support your argument). Click. Click...I think you've run out of ammunition and are resorting to throwing red-herrings at me.

Hey, if we wanted to focus only the ancient texts that scholars think are reliable, then we have even less to work with. Without the Acts of Peter, we have no clue how Peter died, so we can't argue that because Peter was martyred AND he claimed to be an eyewitness, therefore he was martyred BECAUSE he claimed to be an eyewitness, therefore ALL eyewitnesses were martyred. If you want to stick with only reliable, authority-approved texts, be my guest. In all of the New Testament, we have one line about James being beheaded. Not much to work on, really. But if you want to assert "other writings tell us," then don't be surprised if A) I also assert that those same writings tell a different story, and B) the writings are questionable.

In a sense I'm part of branch of Judaism already. The one that believes Jesus was the Messiah.

Only Christians believe Christianity is a legitimate branch of Judaism (indeed, the superior heir of Judaism). I don't know that any Orthodox Jew would consider you one of their own.

Cop-out. Give me your BEST reason the disciples changed their behaviour after the alleged appearances of the resurrected Jesus.

Because they believed that their hero, despite dying an ignomius criminal's death, is alive in heaven and that anyone who subscribes to that theory will soon join him. Belief is a powerful thing, enough to change lives. Our job is to determine if that belief is based on fact. My view is the evidence just isn't very good.

The real question is not whether they initially doubted, but whether they at some point believed. The text seems to indicate they did.

I don't see that.

What law do you think he broke that would warrant a death by stoning? Too many parking tickets? Or perhaps blasphemy, like Stephen? Blasphemy of declaring Jesus as the Christ. How did James come to believe Jesus was the Christ if not by the resurrection?

Peter called Jesus "The Christ" long before the resurrection. Why do you have the belief that no one would ever call Jesus the Christ until after they physically saw him resurrected?

So it comes down to, "The disciples did . . . something . . . and the only reason they did so is because of some supernatural event that violates the laws of physics. Therefore, we must trust that what was reported that they observed is accurate and we must believe the same things."

In my view, the evidence is insufficient to make these leaps of faith. People believe strange things all the time, and the people of first-century Palestine was notorious for the lack of skepticism. For your reading pleasure, I invite you to read Richard Carrier's Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire for enlightenment on the lengths some people will go to believe the unbelievable.

[acamp1]

Goose -

"Christ" means "anointed one." It has nothing to do with His resurrection. (I suspect you know this.)

[Cathar1950]

Good Post JamesBrown.
You make some good points and I have to agree.
You forgot the talking cross and the angels(men) heads that reach the sky.
Tony Stark has shown that the figures for Christian executions was maybe even less then 1000 in the first 300 years.
I would think Jesus died for political reasons as the kingdom would not separate religion from politics and any king but Herod or Cesare would have been seen as a rebellion against the powers that be. I imagine that is what got the first James killed. Stephan's death does sound a lot like Jesus' death and some even think it is just a retelling of the story of brother James or Jesus.

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.

What would it be if we assume that they are facts?

Oh, Oh, Oh... I know this one! It would be begging the the big Q. That's why I worded it as I did.

Cathar, is this all you have? I spent time putting together a post and that's it from you? Give JamesBrown a pat on the back, throw in a little speculation and answer one question with another question.

How's the view from the peanut gallery? :yapyap:

I am not in a peanut gallery so I couldn't tell you but I will donate to JamesBrown because he has bothered to argue with a peanut. Of course no one is yapping, we are writing. But as near as I can see you can’t even get your story right. I also donated to acamp1 because he had a point.
It seems you have a problem telling the difference from what are clearly stories from facts. Now if we were having a trivia contest you might have something to add but beyond that you are speculating about misconceptions, traditions, dogma and stories.
You are rather amusing with your trying to promote some idea that the apostles are killed for being some kind of witnesses at a crime scene. If I remember correctly Jesus was not killed for blasphemy, they were false charges according to the story that the witnesses couldn’t agree on and his charge on the cross was “King of the Jews” which sounds rather political to me. But it is your story.

I argue that it was politics that got them killed even if it (or you) says “Jealousy” and not for being witnesses or blasphemy. It is hardly blasphemy to be the Messiah or even claim to be the Messiah as the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE shows many Pharisees followed him and it may have been one of the dividing factors between what was once a Jewish movement or sect and the remaining Jews.

Acts 5:17-38 (English Standard Version)
The Apostles Arrested and Freed
17But the high priest rose up, and all who were with him (that is, the party of the Sadducees), and filled with jealousy 18they arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison. 19But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out, and said, 20"Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this Life." 21And when they heard this, they entered the temple at daybreak and began to teach.
Now when the high priest came, and those who were with him, they called together the council and all the senate of Israel and sent to the prison to have them brought. 22But when the officers came, they did not find them in the prison, so they returned and reported, 23"We found the prison securely locked and the guards standing at the doors, but when we opened them we found no one inside." 24Now when the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these words, they were greatly perplexed about them, wondering what this would come to. 25And someone came and told them, "Look! The men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people." 26Then the captain with the officers went and brought them, but not by force, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people.

27And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, 28saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us." 29But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."
33When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. 34But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. 35And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. 36For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. 38So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail;

Here we have in what I believe to be another fictional speech (in good Greek fashion) a Pharisee not only defending Peter but also placing them within the same political sectarian category of Zealots.
If you notice it was the High Priest and the Sadducees. Pharisees would not have a problem with the resurrection but in any case we don’t know that it was a resurrection or just an ascension or being lifted up to the right hand of God. The bodily resurrection is an open argument as the early traditions and writings are not clear while the later writings are fighting perceived heresies that believed Jesus just seemed physical such as the Dociests like Marcion. I can make a guess that the gospels we have remaining were picked for coping for just that reason; against others now lost or purposefully destroyed.
Paul is not a witness to Jesus being resurrected; he encountered a glorified spiritual being. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom" or something like that.
No one actually saw the resurrection and what we have are stories that don’t add up because they are not consistent. Even Paul’s statement, if it is his, says first Peter. If we read the gospels we see that he hung around for 40 days and he went right up to God. Take your pick. Don’t touch me I have not ascended to the father verses stick your fingers in my holes.

17But the high priest rose up, and all who were with him (that is, the party of the Sadducees), and filled with jealousy

What do you think they were Jealous of, being witnesses?
It seems the Jews and the Pharisees didn’t have much of a problem and given the Sadducees were known collaborators with Rome it makes it all the more political. It looks to me that the unknown author of Acts is covering something up and did a poor job of checking his work. But I am not going to accuse him of being consistent. It is the little traces of embarrassing remainders that show us not so much the truth as you call it, but hints of a cover up as they try to remove the political problems to the religious in order to become the Roman religion.

25And someone came and told them, "Look! The men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people." 26Then the captain with the officers went and brought them, but not by force, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people.

Notice they were afraid of the people? It looks like the author forgot to cover his tracks. Given the Sadducees and the High Priest have a problem it looks more and more political. Where is your blasphemy?
Try to keep in mind the Sadducees didn’t believe in the resurrection of the dead or the prophets.

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.

In the 21st century in a land of free speech, I'd agree. However, that is NOT the cultural back drop we have with the 1st C early Christian church. Apparently, preaching blasphemy around Jerusalem got one in deep doo-doo in the 1st Century. I think it even got someone crucified if memory serves, now who was that again...

It looks like arresting someone in public could get you in “deep doo-doo” as I pointed out above. It seems your memories is as good as your reading ability. The charge was insurrection and the blasphemy charges didn’t stick. You might also note that they repeat the story in a number of occasions in the story. Steven, James and Jesus yet all get killed for political reasons. There is nothing like a good plot point when you are writing and repeating fictions. Again Jesus did not get crucified for blasphemy.

Now lets move on to Stephen the first Martyr (Witness?) and fictional speeches of Acts.
If I understood you correctly, and I could be wrong, you claim what made them martyr was that they witnessed the Resurrection of Jesus given martyr mean witness. If they were testifying they would be hanging on to their tentacles, if it was a woman he husbands, father or brothers. You try to make a connection that they were witnesses and were killed or martyred or sufferer martyrdom, because they were witnesses. It almost seems like your trying to say “eyewitnesses” but that could be me just suspicious of your rather less then nimble point. Was Stephen, the first martyr and a gentile convert or Hellenistic Diaspora Jew, a witness to the Resurrection of Jesus? Maybe he is one of the 500? What ever they were teaching, the problem probably wasn’t the “resurrection” as you repeatedly say, but that Jesus was king or Messiah and this would fit the political deaths, even the death of James better then blasphemy. If we trust Josephus, it seems many were angry at his death and they were hardly cowering or threatened except by the authorities. What turned cowardly liars into bumbling heroes is the author and the story told from a Gentile Pauline perspective against a non-Pauline Jerusalem leadership. Any close reading of some of Paul’s letter are clear on his contempt for the so called pillars and ones with letters or credentials from James.
There might be a cornel of history behind Stephen including his possible being the gentile servant that was killed or James death (“James the brother of Jesus” makes a case for Stephen meaning crown and stood for James) or even a Zealous (Zealot) Hellenistic Jew.
The point I am making is that it is just part of the stories in Acts along with the invented speeches. Even the last words get copied all over as James, Jesus and Stephen all say, “forgive them”. For Jesus it is even one of the 4 versions of his last words as he remained silent.
Listen to this dribble. Stephen “full of grace and power” did “great wonders”, and showed “miraculous signs” accused the Jews(Sadducees and the High Priest?) gets accused of speaking against the “Holy Place” and “Laws”, with the “face of an angel” calls the Jews stiff-necked and forgives them with as he sees “the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the God”. The author of should have let the unknown author of Acts be Jesus’ press agent. Oh, that’s right he did.
I guess I am saying that your idea that they were witnesses of the Resurrection and saw Jesus is what makes them so special is as goofy as the story of Stephen being a actual incident witnessed with any accuracy. It is just part of the story.

Beyond an argument against biblical inerrancy and arguing against what the evidence suggests in context, what do YOU have?

Are you assuming inerrancy because you have made a mess out of context?
It looks like you confuse stories with evidence that is highly influence by what you think it says as you try and reconcile all the problems.

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.

That's all we need to know. That makes James a martyr! I am not arguing that ALL the disciples were killed BECAUSE they were eyewitnesses. I am arguing that James was killed for his faith, that faith being dependant upon witnessing Jesus resurrected. It's a logical arguement given the context of the times and events.

I just don’t see your point. Why is that all we need to know?
How is James dieing because he witnessed the resurrection of Jesus make sense when he wasn’t there? I think you mean the resurrected Jesus. I don’t think we need to deal with your logic at this point.

But let me continue.

Acts 12:1-3 (English Standard Version)
James Killed and Peter Imprisoned
1About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. 2He killed James the brother of John with the sword, 3and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread.

Here we got Herod killing James then because it pleased the Jews (Sadducees and the High Priest?) he wanted to kill Peter too.
Remember this?

Acts 5:26 (English Standard Version)
26Then the captain with the officers went and brought them, but not by force, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people.

Who are they afraid of the “bunch of sniveling, disbanded, unorganized, cowards” now a mighty “force to be reckoned with”? Do Christians stone people now? Like I said no one should claim the author of Acts to be consistent. I think what we see is the anti-Jewish slant the author places on his work and forgets to cover his tracks. It seems likely they were afraid of the Jews and it pleased the Sadducees and the High Priest. We must remember they represented the peace of the city to Rome even if the Pharisees were the majority; democracy wasn’t Rome’s highest concern.
I think you have got all you can out of the “they wouldn’t die for a lie” apology. I am not going to blame you because I know you didn’t make it up but you sure learned well.