Regarding: Christianity is true or the apostles were lying.

[Drafterman]

It is often said here that if Christianity was not true, then the
apostles would have been lying and would not have died for their
Christianity. To expand:

If something is false then saying it is true is a lie.
People don't die for lies.

Some apostles died for Christianity.
Ergo they could not have been lying about it.
Ergo Christianity is true.

First, we will address the first argument: "If something is false then
saying it is true is a lie". Most people, on the surface, would agree
with this. However the implication is that the person making the
statement is in a position to know whether or not it is true or false.
That is, it *should* be "If someone knows something to be false, then
saying it is true is a lie".

Now the question is: "Were the apostles in a position to know whether
or not Jesus' virgin birth and resurrection were true or false?"

The answer, clearly, is no. Even if we take the gospels at face value,
they admit (implicitly or explicitly) that they were not first-hand
witnesses to either of those accounts. (I do not talk about other
"miracles" since they are not unique to Jesus. Many prophets and
followers were able to perform miracles but a virgin birth and
resurrection are unique to Christ). They were not there to verify or
witness a virgin birth. As far as the resurrection is concerned,
*noone* witnessed it nor were the apostles first to discover the empty
tomb.

So, the apostles got their information from other sources. Who knows
how far they were actually removed from the events themselves. In this
context we not only have to consider their position and honesty, but
the position and honesty of every person in the chain. The slightest
amount of dishonest or mistake (as is inherent in games of
"telephone") would compromise the integrity of the description of the
event. In being honest, all the apostles would have to do is accept it
as true from whoever told them. If the event was corrupted by the time
it got to them, then they could still tell the truth (as far as they
were concerned) even though that depiction could be wrong.

Even if they were in a position to know, first hand, whether or not
the events happened as described, there are still circumstances where
they could describe, to others, a false view, yet, in their minds, not
be lying. Self-hypnosis, delusion, denial. There are many ways people
can decieve themselves, altering their beliefs.

I think the most compelling counter-argument comes from the lack of
application of this logic to other areas where it would apply: cults.
Cult leaders, such as Marshall Applewhite and Jim Jones *were* in a
position to know whether or not their "religions" were true or false.
However, that they died for their religion does not seem to suggest to
Christians that their religions were true. No doubt they would invoke
the same issues of delusion I just did, but yet offer not reason why
those options are not available for the apostles.

In short there are many scenarios where a person can tell the truth,
yet still be talking about a fictional event.

Next, is the issue of them dying for Christianity. This relies on the
fact that depictions of their lives and deaths are accurate. But even
giving this benefit of the doubt there are issues.

It assumes they were murdered specifically because of their
Christianity.
It assumes that they were given the option to recant.
It assumes that they didn't recant (whether recanting because they
knew Christianity was a lie, or recanting as a bluff to escape
punishment).
It assumes that recanting would have had any affect on their
punishment.

A recent example that I have been talking about is Mark. Doing some
individual research it appears to me that it is likely that Mark was
punished not for being a Christian, but for being evangelical. That
is, he was attempting to convert Egyptians, which no doubt pissed them
off. At that point I think his religion was irrelevant.

In my readings (even neutral and pro-Christian sources) it doesn't
even seem that he was ever asked to recant.

I feel that most people would do just about anything to save their own
lives, even lie about their religion. Especially christianity. After
all, you could just repent and all is fine. I also feel that in
determining the details of stories of the Bible that were canon,
details such as an apostle recanting would have been decided to be not
canon and not included.

Now, I would like to note that I am not endorsing any specific
alternative. I am merely presenting alternative options that would
seem not to be explicitly prevented from existing records. In light of
viable options (including the option that they are 100% accurate and
true), I do not see the existence of a measure by which we could say
one option is right and all others are wrong. The logic presented here
is flawed, and does not do anything in regards to establishing the
veracity of the Bible.

[amyluv]

I appreciate your opinions on this idea, Drafter.

However, of course, I have a few rebuttals.

1) Mark, who you mentioned, wasn't one of the disciples. I'm not sure
how he died, however the Disciples are the group that is used in the
argument that your speaking of.

2) I agree there is no way the disciples could have known whether or
now Jesus was of a virgin birth. And yes there were not present at
the moment Christ rose from the dead. However, Jesus did appear to
each one of them, and in the next 40 days, hundreds more. In the
flesh. This was a man they knew, they knew very well. They saw him
be completely covered by slashes and gouges from torture, they saw him
hang on the cross. I'm not sure if they saw the spear go in his side
"just to be sure he's dead", they may have run away by then. Either
way, they scatter, scared. 3 days later, their buddy is up and
walking around, completely healed of his wounds, and moreover, ALIVE.
Then it finally hits them what he said before he died. He had told
them that his would rise again in 3 days. He had told them he was
God. Now they finally believed it.

That is the moment that a bunch of scared confused men hiding in the
corner became changed forever. All of a sudden, they were confident,
bold men, speaking out, willing to face any criticism or punishment
for what they were saying. It didn't matter... their message
outweighed anything that could be pushed on them. These men finally
understood, and it shows in their actions.

I'm getting off track, my point is they saw a dead man walking around.
I think that's pretty good proof that they had first hand knowledge of
the resurrection.

As far as delusional, yes, I agree that's possible. If Jesus had
appeared to only one or 2 of them. BUT, he appeared to ALL of them,
and then hundreds more in the weeks to come. I'm sure most people
thought they were delusional at first, but then once those people saw
Jesus for themselves? And I'm not talking about a stage trick. I'm
talking about a real man, walking around, talking and touching people
face to face. A man that a short time ago, they had seen die on a
cross.

Also, yes it is recorded in history sources outside the bible that
those particular men died, it is recorded how they died, it is
recorded they were put to death because they refused to deny that
Christ rose from the dead. Usually when someone is put to death
because they refused something, they are offered several chances
before hand. Jesus himself, all he had to do say that he was not God
and they wouldn't have crucified him. I'm not sure if history records
if they were given a chance or not, but I have no reason to believe
they were not. And with the scales tipped so heavily on the other
side of reason, I don't feel the need to dig further on that tiny
tidbit.

[Drafterman]

If we take the accounts as completely accurate and reflective of
reality. But if we're going to do that, there's no point in discussing
it, is there? Basically this boils down to, we should believe the
gospel because if it's true then it's true.

>
> As far as delusional, yes, I agree that's possible.  If Jesus had
> appeared to only one or 2 of them.  BUT, he appeared to ALL of them,
> and then hundreds more in the weeks to come.  I'm sure most people
> thought they were delusional at first, but then once those people saw
> Jesus for themselves?  And I'm not talking about a stage trick.  I'm
> talking about a real man, walking around, talking and touching people
> face to face.  A man that a short time ago, they had seen die on a
> cross.

You would be surprised how many people can be caught up in a delusion,
or at least admit to it under pressure.

>
> Also, yes it is recorded in history sources outside the bible that
> those particular men died, it is recorded how they died, it is
> recorded they were put to death because they refused to deny that
> Christ rose from the dead.  Usually when someone is put to death
> because they refused something, they are offered several chances
> before hand.

And usually when someone is being persecuted for the religion the
choices are slow death and quick death.

> Jesus himself, all he had to do say that he was not God
> and they wouldn't have crucified him.  I'm not sure if history records
> if they were given a chance or not, but I have no reason to believe
> they were not.  And with the scales tipped so heavily on the other
> side of reason, I don't feel the need to dig further on that tiny
> tidbit.

Hm. So basically you are saying that you are remaining voluntarily
ignorant of what may be pertinent facts?

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[random]

An example I often bring for this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism


the short version:
A group of religious people had a spiritual leader they admired.
That spiritual leader was believed by some of the followers to be the
messiah. It is hard to know if that leader denied or simply ignored
that group.
When the leader died, the believers were forced to a crisis of faith
since the death also meant that he is not the messiah. Some went back
to the "regular" Chabad belief, some denied his death despite
witnesses and hospital records, some still wait near his grave, and
others even adopted a belief where he is still alive in spiritual body
(or something like that).

Bottom line? Sometimes it is easier to adopt a new myth rather than
shatter the previous one. And just like any conspiracy theory, once
people have a strong belief, no evidence will convince them otherwise,
and certainly not lack of evidences.
I suspect something similar happened with Christianity, as well as
many other spiritual beliefs from different religions.

[amyluv]

> If we take the accounts as completely accurate and reflective of
> reality. But if we're going to do that, there's no point in discussing
> it, is there? Basically this boils down to, we should believe the
> gospel because if it's true then it's true.

Not at all, not in the least. We're talking about one small piece of
whole case of evidence.

If you have doubts about the bible's reliability, then maybe you
should look into those doubts first before landing on the apostles'
deaths.

No, it's a matter of context. What was the norm during that day?
The norm is that they would definitely been given many chances to
recant. AND, even if they weren't their life was a testimony. When
they were saying "he rose from the dead people" they were not treated
very well.

"As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were
beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified.
Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking." - Josh
McDowel

It would have been obvious to them how this was going to end... in
death.

And also, I'm saying you just get to the point where the likelihood of
it being true is much more likely than it not being true, when all the
evidence is weighed. Does one piece alone prove it? Of course not.
Pile all of them together though, and that's where some say it takes
more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.


"After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to
the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of
the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds
of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history". -Josh
McDowell

"For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is
overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in
matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long
taken it for granted."
-A. N. Sherwin-White, Classical Roman Historian

"If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their
authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."
-F. F. Bruce, Manchester University

"There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so
excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism
regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an
irrational bias."
-Clark Pinnock, Mcmaster University

[Drafterman]

On Jul 12, 9:07 pm, amyluv <awri...@usccard.com> wrote:
> > If we take the accounts as completely accurate and reflective of
> > reality. But if we're going to do that, there's no point in discussing
> > it, is there? Basically this boils down to, we should believe the
> > gospel because if it's true then it's true.
>
> Not at all, not in the least. We're talking about one small piece of
> whole case of evidence.
>
> If you have doubts about the bible's reliability, then maybe you
> should look into those doubts first before landing on the apostles'
> deaths.

It's all part in parcel.

Basically, way I see it is this:

Question: Why is Christianity true?
Answer: Because if isn't true, then the apostles/disciplines/
whathaveyou were lying and wouldn't have died for a lie.

Response: But that assumes that their accounts (that is, the Bible) is
true. We can't assume the Bible is true because that's the very
question we're asking.

What is the basis for your statement that them having a chance to
recant was the norm? If anything I would say the opposite. Given the
assumption that we are generally getting more civilized as we progress
into the future, we can then say, as we go into the past, we get less
civilized. The inquisition is an excellent example of people being
forced to "recant". But even then the only options were "Recant and
die quickly" or "Don't recant and die slowly and painfully" Not really
options, are they? Since the stories of these characters happened way
before the inquisition we can safely assume that they would have been
treated less civil than victims of the inquisition.

In any event, this all assumes that the accounts in the Bible are
true. You have to remember that the Bible you know today has been
edited. It seems most certain that if they HAD recanted, or did
anything to call into question the validity of Christianity, that
account would have been left out.

>
> "As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were
> beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified.
> Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking." - Josh
> McDowel
>
> It would have been obvious to them how this was going to end... in
> death.
>
> And also, I'm saying you just get to the point where the likelihood of
> it being true is much more likely than it not being true, when all the
> evidence is weighed. Does one piece alone prove it? Of course not.
> Pile all of them together though, and that's where some say it takes
> more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.
>
> "After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to
> the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of
> the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds
> of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history". -Josh
> McDowell

That's a false dilemma though. There are many, many options besides
"Christianity is true" and "It was a hoax" which is the entire point
of this thread. Statement's like McDowells are erroneous.

>
> "For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is
> overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in
> matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long
> taken it for granted."
> -A. N. Sherwin-White, Classical Roman Historian

Hm. Interesting. I doubt there is any piece of history where the
details are not up for scrutiny.

>
> "If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their
> authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."
> -F. F. Bruce, Manchester University

I agree with this. But this has nothing to do with any sort of
imagined double standard and everything to do with the higher-than-
warranted level of importance placed on the New Testament by
Christians. If the Bible was not valued any more significantly than,
say, the Illiad, then it would be treated the same.

>
> "There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so
> excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism
> regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an
> irrational bias."
> -Clark Pinnock, Mcmaster University

I do not see what these quotes hope to prove. They don't change
anything.

The crux of Christianity is that Jesus was born a virgin and was
resurrected. The "evidence" for these things are found in only one
location: the Bible. These events are NOT verified by independent
sources.

Now, there are things in the Bible that are verified by independent
sources, but truth does not carry over. If I write down 10 claims on a
piece of paper, and prove 1, that doesn't make the rest proved. If I
prove 9, that doesn't make the last one proved. So just because some
accounts in the Bible have enough support to be treated as true, that
does NOTHING for the validity of other accounts.

To go from "Christianity is true" or "Christianity was a hoax" there
are a number of other assumptions that must be made:

1. Those involved with the formation of Christianity were in a
position to know the truth (that is, they had first-hand knowledge of
the virgin birth and resurrection).
2. They did not delude themselves from this truth (people have an
enormous capacity for self-deception)
3. They were put in a position of harm due to their adherence to
Christianity
4. They believed that recanting would have spared them life or limb
5. They were given the option to recant

Only if all of those criteria are met is it not wrong to put forth as
the only two options "Christianity is true" or "Christianity was a
hoax".

But we stumble even at #1. There are no first-hand accounts of Jesus'
birth, not even in the Bible. And the resurrection is suspect as well.
We have Jesus alleged death. An empty tomb (no first hand accounts).
And Jesus "appearing". But there are certainly other options that do
not require miracles: Jesus didn't die. It wasn't Jesus that appeared
to them.

And there is also no getting around #2. You can't prove that they
didn't delude themselves. Now, I'm not saying that they definitively
did, I am simply saying you cannot rule it out as an option.

3 is a given, but that's the only one.

#4 cannot be proven either since it requires intimate knowledge of
their thoughts. If they didn't believe that recanting would have done
anything, they made not have even tried it.

And 5 simple rests upon the accuracy of the stories about them.

Given this information there are plenty of other options besides
"Christianity is true" or "Christianity was a hoax".

[Stephen]

S: I find it interesting that a key witness to the resurrection, Mary
Magdalene, was said to have been possessed by seven demons.

See Mark 16:9 (probably not original), "When Jesus rose early on the
first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of
whom he had driven seven demons", also Luke 8:2b "Mary (called
Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out".

Employing a female witness as the first witness to the resurrection is
somewhat peculiar (a female witness was not esteemed as highly as a
male's at the time). This would lend some support to the historicity
of the idea that it was Mary Magdalene who was first to "see" the
risen Christ. However, if we're willing to assume her alleged demon
possession was actually some form of mental illness, then it
reasonable to believe her "seeing" the risen Christ was, at least in
part, hallucinatory. (A scenario in which she could be in part
hallucinating is say seeing the gardener and mistaking him for Jesus).

Her ecstatic retelling to the disciples of her seeing their master
alive (who some commentators suggest had fled back to their homes in
Galilee soon after Jesus' arrest and hence unlikely to ever be present
at the alleged empty tomb) seems to have led to the more fantastic
accounts in which Jesus is said to have physically appeared to the
disciples. (These physical resurrection accounts are older too, say
about 40 years after Jesus' death).

It seems the people at the time had an inclination to believe in
resurrections, e.g. some believed John the Baptist had been raised
from the dead Mk 6:14, there are the alleged "many holy people who had
died were raised to life" in Mat 27:50-53, the widow's son in Luke
7:11-15, Jairus' daughter in Luke 8:50-56, Lazarus in John 11:11-14,
Tabitha in Acts 9:36-42, and Eutychus in Acts 20:9-12.

I think the early disciples were transformed by a profoundly religious
experience, though I doubt this was an experience of Jesus' physical
resurrection. I think it is an interesting quest to determine what it
was that caused the early Christians to found a new religion, and more
generally, what motivated others to found new religions.