Did the Disciples Die as Martyrs? | Paulogia Response

Some have said that liars make poor martyrs. The apostles were willing to suffer and die for their belief in Jesus' resurrection. This shows that they were at least sincere. Sure, there are martyrs in other faiths. What sets the apostolic martyrdom apart was they died for what they said they saw firsthand.

But have Christian apologists overstated their case? Skeptics like popular YouTuber Paulogia say they have. Big time. Here I make the case for the apostle's suffering and martyrdom and look at a few of Paulogia's objections.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Outro music:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

[TestifyApologetics]

Sorry for the audio issues at the end.

[Ap]

I'm rather skeptical of Paulogia's sincerity here. He points out Ananaias had an agenda against James but no comment as to the cause. Why would a high priest take issue with some random peasant if not for his refusal to recant on his preaching? We also do have evidence of Paul's martyrdom in the form of Eusebius. Yes it's not as good as an eyewitness account but it's still there and he just seemed to ignore it. Finally, no mention of how Polycarp could have recanted? Convenient. I can agree that Christians in general do have a habit of overstating our evidence but atheist youtubers, especially large ones, have reason to overstate their skepticism and so it seems to me he's more preaching to his choir than making an honest assessment of the evidence.

[cerebralfaithvideo]

The church was under varying degrees of persecution for DECADES before Peter and Paul were killed. If I were in their shoes and we were just lying about the resurrection, I would have given up when Saul Of Tarsus started persecuting the church. I wouldn’t have waited until Nero. I would have been like “Wow! This preaching Jesus’ resurrection thing is pretty dangerous! And given that we’re not getting anything out of it; no power, no wealth, no maidens, I’m just going to quietly go back to fishing.”

Skeptics who try to undermine the evidential value of the apostles martyrdom are fighting a battle they cannot win.

I cannot bring myself to believe that these 12 men went decades and decades, knowing that preaching what they were preaching could very well get them killed at worst or imprisoned at best, all the while knowing that it was a lie, would continue to do it. Now, if there were some earthly rewards to gain, then that would be one thing. In the case of a smoker, a thief, a serial killer, they risk coming under bad consequences because they think that the risk to reward ratio is worth it. If somebody can get away with stealing $1 billion, well, then you’re $1 billion richer. Sure, you might get caught and go to prison for a long time, and that’s not good. But if you’re successful about not being caught, then you are a billionaire. Serial killers often get a sick thrill out of murdering their victims. That’s the reward they get for risking getting caught and going to the chair. But what earthly reward did the disciples get? They didn’t get power. Even if Peter was the first pope as the Catholics maintain, it’s not like he was living in the huge Vatican that exists today. That kingdom Vatican wouldn’t come until centuries later. The apostles got no positions of power. At best, the position they would’ve gotten for themselves would’ve been no more significant than that of a local pastor, like James in Jerusalem. It’s not like they were getting lots of women. And they weren’t getting rich off of it. These are the three motives that J Warner Wallace says under lies every crime that he has ever investigated; money, sex, and power. Which of these did the disciples get? None of them.

With no earthly reward insight, why would the disciples be willing to suffer? Why would they be willing to suffer at best and be willing to die at worst? For no money, sex, or power. Well, maybe the reward wasn’t an earthly reward. Maybe it was an eternal, spiritual reward, promised to them by the resurrected Jesus himself! Because they really believe that Jesus rose from the dead. And so, even if they didn’t gain anything in this life, they would gain everything in the next!

In order for Paulogia’s comparison to thieves and smokers to have force, he would have to show what the disciples gained on the assumption that they were lying about the resurrection. Only then, will it be an apples to apples comparison.

Moreover, I think that if the resurrection were a bald face lie, they would’ve recounted. Even if recanting wouldn’t have save them, they would’ve done it, just to attempt to save them selves! And if they had done that, that probably would’ve gotten now given how shocking it would be for Peter or Matthew or Paul, to just admit that they made the whole thing up! Yet not only does history tell us that they risked themselves for decades, knowing what the consequences COULD be, but we have no records of them recanting. True, we don’t have any records of them being given an opportunity to recant, but I think that if they had recanted ( even if the effort to save themselves were in vain and their persecutors killed them anyway), surely this would have gotten out. Christians who might’ve been nearby would’ve spread the word. And if nothing else, the enemies of Christianity, like Nero and Ananas probably would’ve weaponized their recounting to try to dissuade anyone else from becoming Christians.

Now, granted, this is an argument from silence. But we need to remember that not every argument from silence is logically fallacious. Sometimes the silence is deafening. If I were working at Dollar General, and one of my coworkers came in and told me that the planet was being invaded by aliens, I would respond “That’s nonsense. If that were true, it would be all over the news.” that’s an argument from silence, but it has some force. Surely, some thing of that magnitude would be reported on the news. That it’s not as pretty good evidence that we are not indeed, being invaded by aliens. If all, or even some of the apostles recanted at the guillotine, this would’ve been shocking. The Christian community would’ve had to do damage control and the anti-Christians would’ve used it as a weapon to try to just wait other people from becoming Christians. We would expect writers like Justin martyr to try to explain why Peter recanted it, even though the resurrection actually happened.

[austinlincoln]

As a skeptic this video was very helpful thank you sir

[aleclyons]

If Christians were being killed for their beliefs, then someone has the ability to recant by denouncing Christianity before they are next. It doesn't need to be a renunciation on the guillotine.

[bluedogpolitics]

It doesn’t matter if they actually died as martyrs. It is a fact that Christians were being persecuted for their beliefs, and the early Christians were well aware of this. The fact that they continued to preach it anyway is a good indicator.

[iranianskeptic]

By his criteria, I can't be sure that the people I call martyrs and I'm proud of them really martyred to defend my homeland.

I mean, although they were killed willingly on the battlefield, I don't have the testimony of all of them that the reason for their death was to defend our homeland, I don't know if they would have betrayed my country if they had been captured and had a chance to be saved! So I'm not proud of them anymore. 😔

[RoninCatholic]

PAULOGIA: "Would you say that a thief is _willing_ to go to jail or that a cigarette smoker is _willing_ to get lung cancer?"

ME: Yes.

[TheTalkingCorner]

Just found this channel. This is amazing apolgetics. Very persuasive, honest and all done in Good faith. Gonna binge all these videos now.

[Jimmy-iypl]

Being willing to suffer to gain something is completely different than being willing to suffer to the point of death for your testimony to a historical event. Sincerity isn't a factor for a thief committing robbery. Sincerity does have something to do with delivering testimony though.

[masturchief]

Lol, him saying that "we don't know why they were killed" is like saying "we don't know why MLK was assassinated."

[MuhammadsMohel]

Thanks for taking Paulogia to task again.

[Joe-ginj]

Of course the skeptic places unreasonable standards on the definition of martyr.

You do not need to have the opportunity to recant your beliefs in order to be a martyr.

If you are killed for being a Christian, regardless of whether you have the opportunity to recant, you are a martyr

[dogsnout]

Great job. You break down his logic very well

[AnHebrewChild]

Good points. The best point by far, imo, being 2:42

Good stuff man.

[John-...]

Plogia can play word games all he wants but he cannot argue that the apostles died because they were Christians and would not have died if they were not. Even in the case of the Jewish temple leader having a grudge towards James and having him stoned makes perfect sense because of Jame's faith

[Inari]

Actually, I don't think Paulogia gives good feedback here. And here's why. As pointed out, He completely dismisses the view that the sources themselves indicate that the motives for the persecutions were religious. Uh....the sources themselves indicate they were. Josephus says Ananus accused St. James and others of bring "breakers of the law." <--- Josephus's own wording. Considering that Ananus was the Jewish High Priest, just what kind of law breaking do you think Ananus was concerned about; religious or civil? Hmmmm, I wonder. 🤦‍♂️

And as for Herod Agrippa, apparently Paulogia didn't read Acts well enough. Acts indeed shows religious motive in his persecution. All you have to do is read Acts 12: 2, 3: "He had James, the brother of John killed by the sword, and when he saw that this was pleasing to the Jews he proceeded to arrest Peter also." <---- Herod Agrippa was trying to please the Jews via his arrest of St Peter. I don't see how someone can miss a religious motive here. It's the easiest reading of the text.

I suppose someone could read the verse from Acts and infer that there may have been a different motive for the death of St. James the brother of St. John. But for St. Peter, that is unambiguously religious as far as I am concerned... Because it says that when he killed St. James, he arrested St. Peter when he saw it pleased the Jews. It's at least more explicit with St. Peter's arrest

Sure, Christians must not overstate their case, but they shouldn't understate it either

[insightsinthetext]

That's what I call content; Good Job Eric

[Davis_Carlton]

There's also the Letter from Pliny to Trajan written in the early 2nd century in which Christians are directed to be killed after being given the opportunity to recant. Granted, this would have been several decades after the martyrdom of the Apostles, but it demonstrates that policies such as the one that Paulogia mentions were in place early on in Christian history. Earlier Jewish persecutions would have been more focused on getting Christians to recant because of their hatred of Jesus' claim to be divine.

[WeakestAvenger]

Funny, I just yesterday listened to Sean McDowell and Paulogia discuss this very thing on Unbelievable, from May 8, 2020.

I recommend anyone who appreciated this video to listen to that podcast episode from Unbelievable.

(Edit: Sean does a good job, I think, arguing that #2 and #3 of Paulogia's criteria for a martyr aren't held either by academics nor by laypeople in general.)