-Removed-For one, according to Phillips, John died of natural causes. So it's not "all the apostles".
For another, most of the other accounts are couched in terms such as "claims are", "may have been", "possible", etc. So there does seem to be doubt about how factual the "tradition[al]" stories are and in some cases there are more than one.
There are other problems as well.
So unless you can provide evidence, your point seems to be built upon sand.
-Removed-The monks that burned themselves while being invaded sitting in the lotus position had a very deep and powerful effect on the soldiers that were invading them. I had actually met one and he said that it changed his whole life right there.
Not to mention I guess these buddhist monks realized that they would be tortured for information,etc.
While at the same time demonstrating that physical life is transient and they were willing to die for their beliefs
3 edits
-Removed-The premise for the OP was built upon the following:
I sometimes wonder about the apostles who were brutally murdered for their faith in Jesus Christ and his message. I wonder that if (as some say) they were fabricating his resurrection, surely they wouldn't die for something they knew was a lie?
Based on that and some other things you posted later I responded as follows:
From what I can tell, you think that all the apostles were "brutally murdered for their faith in Jesus Christ and his message" and that they had an opportunity to save their lives by renouncing their faith.
What evidence do you have that the above is true?
I found the following written by J B Phillips which is not in agreement with the above:
http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN500APOSTLES%20FATE.htm
The Phillips accounts do not support your premise.
If you have evidence that does, then simply post it.
If you don't, then the entire premise is built upon sand.
I'm at a loss as to why you don't seem to comprehend the above.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAfter rebuking the High Priest and the Jews, stephen said the following:
The premise for the OP was built upon the following:I sometimes wonder about the apostles who were brutally murdered for their faith in Jesus Christ and his message. I wonder that if (as some say) they were fabricating his resurrection, surely they wouldn't die for something they knew was a lie?
Based on that and some other things you ...[text shortened]... se is built upon sand.
I'm at a loss as to why you don't seem to comprehend the above.
But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the
glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said,
“Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the
right hand of God!”
(Acts 7:55-56 NKJV)
Then the Jews stoned Stephen to death.
-Removed-Clearly your beliefs are not that strong - and you don't actually know your religious beliefs to be the truth - or you simply don't have any religious beliefs worth dying for.
If for example you believed that renouncing your faith would lead to eternal punishment in hell, then presumably you would be willing to die rather than renounce your faith.
I must also point out that humans seem to be remarkably adept at convincing themselves that something is true for reasons other than evidential ones, and also humans can be remarkably stubborn - even to the point of dying rather than admit a lie (which they know to be a lie).
But once again, I do not believe that there is good evidence that the disciples died for something they knew to be a complete lie there are many possibilities including:
1. That most of them were not martyred as claimed.
2. That they were killed for other reasons.
3. That they were not given a choice of renounce or die.
4. That they genuinely believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
5. That the did not make any such claim.
6. That the claim was not central to their teachings / religion.
-Removed-Of course it is not about simply refusing to renounce your beliefs, it is about what you believe the consequences are of doing so and whether those outweigh the consequences of dying. Most of us would deny that 2+2=4 over even a minor threat as we see no benefit to defending it.
But when it comes to religious beliefs there are many elements in play.
- you may consider it a 'matter of principle' not to deny your belief.
- you may consider it a religious duty not to deny your beliefs - and this may carry severe consequences.
- you may, as you mention, be interested in perpetuating those beliefs regardless of whether you live or die.
- there may be social pressures - this should not be underrated, some people would rather die than live with the shame of certain acts.
- you may not consider death to be such a serious thing. You worry about your family etc, but the disciples presumably had already left their families and were assured of a place in heaven.
3 edits
-Removed-I do not think the apostles were ALL brutally murdered, some were according to various sources
You certainly seemed to indicate otherwise earlier:
This supposition is not a reason to presume someone would die for what they knew was a complete lie. I think all the apostles died horrible deaths, surely one or two would have just stepped down from the plate to save their lives, like Peter did just that right after Christ's execution.
the link YOU post supported that some were and some were not. Perhaps you should read the links you post more carefully.
I did read it "carefully". As I posted earlier, the "support" was less than firm:
... most of the other accounts are couched in terms such as "claims are", "may have been", "possible", etc. So there does seem to be doubt about how factual the "tradition[al]" stories are and in some cases there are more than one...There are other problems as well.
Some of the other problems with your premise were listed by TW:
But once again, I do not believe that there is good evidence that the disciples died for something they knew to be a complete lie there are many possibilities including:
1. That most of them were not martyred as claimed.
2. That they were killed for other reasons.
3. That they were not given a choice of renounce or die.
4. That they genuinely believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
5. That the did not make any such claim.
6. That the claim was not central to their teachings / religion.
But of course you evaded the issue in your discussion with TW just as you've been evading the issue in your discussion with me.
You now seem to be 'foot-stamping' and demanding 'evidence' of apostolic executions. But carry on.
The following hardly constitutes 'foot-stamping'. Why the mischaracterization?
If you have evidence that does, then simply post it.
If you don't, then the entire premise is built upon sand.
You could do something really unusual like actually addressing the issues put before you instead of continuing to try to avoid them.