This OP is prompted by Splendour in 'Origin's of Christianity' thread. In order to honor her desire to not derail that thread, I wanted to start this one, as I find the topic worthy.

I didn't request official HC status, but please make every attempt to stay focused.


To Splendour's point, she argues there is a significant difference between Apostolic Martyrdom and the 'suicides' of other causes. Fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, Jonestown, Heaven's gate, etc.

Christians, do you agree with Splendour in this case? If so, can you expand on your rationale?

This thread is inappropriate, even though I would like her to answer. She has pretty clearly demonstrated that she doesn't want to address this question to the forum in general or to argue with atheists at all. Isolating it as a new thread in the exact post she says this seems pretty silly.

I don't see what is so confusing about this. Splendour is pointing out that people who die for their beliefs are less likely to be insincere about those beliefs. Since the beliefs in question (supposedly) include historical claims about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, this is supposed to be evidence that the Apostles were not lying when they talked about these things.

Of course there are martyrs in other religions, but that isn't the point. This is not just to say that because someone died for their religion their religion is correct, rather it is to provide evidence that the apostolic testimony about Jesus' life is trustworthy.

Before they get started, I concede that any Apostle that might have existed is dead by now. Does that make them martyrs?

They could have been killed for being liars or parasites, or they may have died from natural causes.

Many of their Apostolic Successors were documented a-holes.

It might prove they were not just egregiously and deliberately lying. I take it for granted that most martyrs do legitimately believe the things they do. Unfortunately, people can come to legitimately believe the strangest of things. So the mere fact that they genuinely believe them is evidence of the shallowest kind.

My favorite documented Christian Martyr is Michael Servetus.

A very intelligent Christian who was burned alive by other Christians for pointing out the truth, that the Holy Trinity is not contained in the Bible.

Condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike, he was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council.

On 27 October 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake just outside Geneva with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. Historians record his last words as: "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me."

Perhaps we should ask the Manichaeans who were martyred alongside Christians during Diocletian's Persecution.

Here is another Christian Martyr

James Strang made foes among his own people, too. One of these, Thomas Bedford, had been flogged for adultery on Strang's orders, and felt considerable resentment toward the "king." Another, Dr. H.D. McCulloch, had been excommunicated for drunkenness and other alleged misdeeds, after previously enjoying Strang's favor and several high offices in local government. These conspired against Strang with Alexander Wentworth and Dr. J. Atkyn, who had allegedly endeavored (unsuccessfully) to blackmail the Strangites into paying his numerous bad debts. A decree that female Strangites must wear "bloomers" only added fuel to the fire for Bedford and other malcontents on Beaver Island. Pistols were procured, and the four conspirators began several days of target practice while finalizing the details of their murderous plan.

Although Strang apparently knew that Bedford and the others were gunning for him, he seems not to have taken them very seriously. "We laugh with bitter scorn at all these threats," he wrote in the Northern Islander, just days before his murder. Strang's refusal to employ a bodyguard or to carry a firearm or other weapon made him an easy target.

On Monday, June 16, 1856, Strang was waylaid around 7:00 PM on the dock at the harbor of St. James, chief city of Beaver Island, by Wentworth and Bedford, who shot him in the back. All of this was carried out in full view of several officers and men of the USS Michigan, a U.S. Naval vessel docked in the harbor. Not one person on board the ship made any effort to warn or to aid the intended victim.

Strang was hit three times: one bullet grazed his head, another lodged in his cheek and a third in his spine. One of the assassins then savagely pistol-whipped the fallen prophet before running aboard the nearby vessel with his companion, where both claimed sanctuary. Some accused Captain McBlair of the Michigan of complicity in, or at least foreknowledge of, the assassination plot, though no hard evidence of this was ever forthcoming. The so-called "King of Beaver Island" was taken to Voree, where he lived for three weeks, dying on July 9, 1856 at the age of 43. After refusing to deliver Bedford and Wentworth to the local sheriff, McBlair transported them to Mackinac Island, where they were given a mock trial, fined $1.25, released, and then feted by the locals. None of the plotters was ever punished for his crimes.

Strang served one full term and part of a second as a member of the Michigan House of Representatives.

This is perhaps the most charitable interpretation of Splendour's posts I've ever seen on 2+2.

Before I nominate them all for the Nobel Peace Prize, could someone describe the documentary evidence that the Apostles actually died in the line of duty?

It is worth noting that I suspect for a huge number of "martyrs", i don't know about these ones, they get in trouble with the authorities for preaching unorthodox views of the time, get killed for it and then are declared to be martyrs later. It is possible that before they die they squeal and cry about how everything they said was completely fabricated, but the stories repeated by those who want them to be martyrs will be of them bravely defending the one truth to the end, thus being evidence for the truth itself.

No, he's right.

There's only a handful of people on this board that can read my posts accurately and he's usually one of them.

Mostly I get misinterpreted exaggerations of my positions/statements on here.

I honestly don't see how you're reaching this interpretation. Even so, it's not the point being refuted. No one has claimed that a martyr has been insincere in their beliefs. Only that martyrs can be sincerely wrong. My argument is that the Apostles are not exempt from scrutiny.

In any case, it wasn't my intention to call Splendour to task on the subject after she said she no longer wants to debate it (even though it appears the subject continues to derail the other thread). I simply agreed with Splendour that it was a topic derail, and felt it worthy of it's own thread. My OP specifically engaged other Christians to see if they agree with her position, having used her own posts to re-lay the foundation.


I'm referencing the following two posts, which will hopefully better clarify my position. This is what I'm hoping Christians will respond to:

I hope this offers some clarity to what I'm actually asking.

No one goes to their death for what they know is a lie.

Jesus said many times that he would be put to death, and
would rise again on the third day.

At the time of his death Jesus' followers were mostly no where
to be found. Peter denied him 3 times.

Then, once Jesus appeared to them, you find them zealously
leading the astounding growth of the Christian church in the first
century. Some skeptics like Jesus' brother James are leaders
in the movement. What made the difference?

1 Corinthians 15:

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles

For more details read the book written by an atheist called
"Who Moved the Stone" Frank Morison set out to disprove the
historical Jesus, and ended up being converted by the evidence.

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-Ston.../dp/0310295610

What if they don't know it's a lie? I don't think anyone is claiming the apostles didn't sincerely believe what they did.

So either Jesus appeared to them, or they are were delusional about
the resurrection?

And what would make the second option so shocking that we would have to assume it's not true?

This seems to be the crux of the matter, and I find it to be disturbingly unconvincing. Is it not possible they were delusional about the resurrection? It seems to me people have been far more delusional than this particular instance, especially regarding matters of religion.

Well, I am not going to speak for Splendour. What I was trying to do was make the reasoning for this defense of the reliability of the NT clear. It's fine if you think the argument fails, but your OP seemed to indicate that you weren't clear that there was a real distinction here at all. It seems to me pretty clear that there is.

When people die for their religious beliefs, that indicates to us that those beliefs are deeply held. This doesn't tell us very much about whether those beliefs are true in most cases as it is pretty common for people to have deeply held false beliefs. However, it does tell us something in the case of the apostles. It tells us that Christianity was not founded by hucksters--that they weren't just making up stories for personal gain.

My apologies. I do agree that my OP should have been clearer, both in my position and intent.

For the record, I in no way feel the Apostles were hucksters making up stories for personal gain.

was anyone in this thread or the previous one claiming they were hucksters? I mean sure, that might (provided we have appropriate historicity that they genuinely claimed it until the end) disprove this strawman but not much else.

I take it as self evident that people of innumerable religions will fervently believe in the religious claims to the point of being willing to die for them. What I have a problem with is when someone takes a particular religion, and a particular set of martyrs, and trumps this up as evidence to its veracity while not applying the same standard to martyrs important in the history of other religions. Far from being compelling evidence of the veracity, I might almost expect people to die for their religion and be called martyrs for it.

Martyrdom is more about impressing the warden than the inmates IMO. If you inspire someone on the way, I guess its a bonus.

Martyrdom is like a seed. It's also like a resurrection. Something dies but changes into something else that lasts and multiplies.

"I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." John 12:24

The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. Their testimony is still alive today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sleepers

Once upon a time ...