Nobody Dies for a Lie

[One Bad Pig]

Then I think you have not been looking. I have encountered MANY who claim that the martyrdom of the apostles is proof that the claims about Jesus are true (resurrection, miracles, etc.) because "no one would die for a lie." Evidence, maybe. Proof? No. There are simply too many other credible (IMO) possibilities.

Having debated alternative theories for the Resurrection of Jesus, the apostles knowingly dying for a lie is easily the least incredible hypothesis.

[carpedm9587]

Well D.E. is obviously the 2nd most intelligent TWebber.

Third actually. And you're second...

[carpedm9587]

Having debated alternative theories for the Resurrection of Jesus, the apostles knowingly dying for a lie is easily the least incredible hypothesis.

Who says it has to be knowingly?

[Zymologist]

Who says it has to be knowingly?

Isn't that the whole point? If they die for a lie unknowingly it isn't actually a lie.

[JimL]

Then I think you have not been looking. I have encountered MANY who claim that the martyrdom of the apostles is proof that the claims about Jesus are true (resurrection, miracles, etc.) because "no one would die for a lie." Evidence, maybe. Proof? No. There are simply too many other credible (IMO) possibilities.

Actually there is no sound evidence that the martyrdom of the apostles is any more of an historical reality than the the other fantastical stories in the bible anyway.

[Mountain Man]

Isn't that the whole point? If they die for a lie unknowingly it isn't actually a lie.

No, it just means they sincerely believed it. Somebody else could have been lying to them.

Like I said, it refutes only one particular argument against Christianity - that the apostles were a bunch of con men - but it doesn't prove anything beyond that. However, it does lead naturally to the question of WHY they sincerely believed it, and then we can analyze the evidence that was available to them.

[JimL]

No, it just means they sincerely believed it. Somebody else could have been lying to them.

Like I said, it refutes only one particular argument against Christianity - that the apostles were a bunch of con men - but it doesn't prove anything beyond that. However, it does lead naturally to the question of WHY they sincerely believed it, and then we can analyze the evidence that was available to them.

If it's a storybook, then the reason "why the apostles sincerely believed it," is because that was the intent of the authors.

[One Bad Pig]

Actually there is no sound evidence that the martyrdom of the apostles is any more of an historical reality than the the other fantastical stories in the bible anyway.

You sort of have a point here, notwithstanding your a priori rejection of biblical events. The biblical manuscripts are much better attested and are closer in time to the events recorded in them than the accounts of the apostles' demise.

[carpedm9587]

Isn't that the whole point? If they die for a lie unknowingly it isn't actually a lie.

True - it would dying for a mistake, or an incorrect perception. The point is, all of this falls, for me, into a "we don't know" bucket. There are lots of possible scenarios. Of all of them, the "Jesus was actually the son of god and was resurrected" is the least probable/plausible.

[carpedm9587]

Actually there is no sound evidence that the martyrdom of the apostles is any more of an historical reality than the the other fantastical stories in the bible anyway.

Well, I have to admit my church history studies are more than three decades behind me, but I seem to recall that there was extra-scriptural confirming evidence for at least some of those deaths. We do know a LOT of early Christian's were martyred, but the ones that are usually pointed to as "proof" that Jesus was resurrected and was god were the deaths of the original 12 apostles themselves. The argument was that they were witnesses to the events, so they would have known it was true/untrue.

[Roy]

True - it would dying for a mistake, or an incorrect perception. The point is, all of this falls, for me, into a "we don't know" bucket. There are lots of possible scenarios. Of all of them, the "Jesus was actually the son of god and was resurrected" is the least probable/plausible.

I'd like to put in a vote for

Jesus was an intelligent shade of blue in thrall to the Chinese deity water Ho-Sing that took on the form of 14 snake-tongued men (Jesus + 13 apostles) and bent space time around jerusalem to create apparent miracles wush advanced technology then ascended into the sky in a plastic bucket attached to a 20th century crane painted with invisibility ink while speaking fluent Iroquios via a universal translator shaped like a statue of Michtlantecuthli the god of bad spelling

as an even less probable/plausible explanation.

[One Bad Pig]

True - it would dying for a mistake, or an incorrect perception. The point is, all of this falls, for me, into a "we don't know" bucket. There are lots of possible scenarios. Of all of them, the "Jesus was actually the son of god and was resurrected" is the least probable/plausible.

On the contrary; an incorrect perception is the least probable/plausible given the biblical texts. You're free to throw (portions) of those out, but then we're back to lying.

Roy's mockery is entirely a scenario built on silence, and so doesn't even merit consideration.

[Cerebrum123]

On the contrary; an incorrect perception is the least probable/plausible given the biblical texts. You're free to throw (portions) of those out, but then we're back to lying.

Roy's mockery is entirely a scenario built on silence, and so doesn't even merit consideration.

He seems to be saying his own scenario is ridiculous if I'm reading him right.

[One Bad Pig]

He seems to be saying his own scenario is ridiculous if I'm reading him right.

Yes, he is. All I'm saying is that his scenario doesn't even appear on the scale from plausible to implausible; it's not really meant to be considered.

[firstfloor]

Nothing extraordinary or honorable about a mentally ill person committing suicide. Buckel deserves our sympathy, not our respect, and his death is in no way analogous to the crucifixion of Jesus.

Buckel is a modern counterpart of Jesus and you are like the Roman oppressor. He locates the current struggle. You mooch around in the memory of an old one.

There is a good article here:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...ed-lgbt-rights