Why Would the Disciples Die for the Gospel if it isn't True?

Dean from VA wants to revisit Paul's conversation with Dr Sean McDowell on the argument from sincere martyrs for the resurrection of Jesus. Also, @jimmysnow was there.

Support Paulogia at

Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast

Follow Paulogia at

[hossmcgregor]

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear this "die for a lie" bit is "Heaven's Gate".

[Sonjacrow]

Every religion has people that are willing to die for their religion.

Does that make every religion true?

[rhondah]

Fact remains that humans, particularly ancient humans, made up a whole lot of divine entities unless we should think all those thousands of deities were based on real people. Of course, we know that fanciful stories and legends have been created around actual real people that in no way resemble their actual lives. We humans do love fantastical stories, the more fantastical the better.

[scifidad]

Really wanted to hear Dean's answer to "which atheist argument is the most convincing?" It's seems to always be a one-way street with this type of question.

[timothymulholland]

The disciples readily scattered in fear when Jesus was arrested and Peter, the “rock” denied him thrice. Thomas demanded evidence. These fellows don’t sound like martyr material.

[tschorsch]

People are willing to die for things they believe in. Those things do not necessarily need to be true. Many people have died and killed in the name of different religions whose truths are mutually exclusive.

[DorianGreer]

How does someone willing do die for something make it true? I didn't get this.

[SundayMatinee]

One symbol for Christianity is a fish. Appropriate because it's a big fish story.

[fred_derf]

1. Where is the evidence that any disciple died for the gospel? I realise that's a common christian trope, but the reality is most of the disciples disappear from any type of recorded history after jesus's supposed ascension. Since they're said to have lived 2, 000ish years ago it's safe to say that they've all died, but not how.

2. A person will die for what they know is a lie if it's in service to a bigger belief. So, *if* a disciple believed that jesus was god, they may be willing to die for their lie that they saw him risen, because they've been using that lie to convert others to their religion.

3. And this one should be simple to understand... if the gospel's aren't true, then any claim in the gospels is (at best) suspect. So, even _if_ the gospels reported the disciples dying for their beliefs (which they don't, but if they did) and the gospels aren't true -- then the stories of the disciples dying for the gospels can't be shown to be true either.

[hank_says_things]

Simple answer: even if you grant that all of them died for their beliefs (which is basically untrue), people can be honestly wrong about stuff.

Most people I hear using this argument are Christians, who presumably wouldn’t accept it if used by any other flavour of religious apologist. I guess you could call it an “argument from conviction” 🤷🏼‍♂️

[kamion]

I recommand Candida Moss on this topic : the Myth of Persecution, how early Christians invented a story of Martyrdom.
There are only six accounts what could be called genuine Martyrdoms and in none of them was the wittnessing of a resurrection an issue.
It is a kind of telling that all these Martyr stories date from the 4th century after Constantine erased the risk of being persecuted at all.
And from the time Christians started persecuting heretics on a daily basis.

[grumpylibrarian]

I'm not going to compliment an argument if it blows chunks just to be polite. That's stupid.

[jeffparent]

The thing I've always found weird is arguments about why the authors would write things that humiliate the Disciples if it's not true. When you read the gospels they are constantly having issues understanding Jesus' teachings, you know the guy they literally spent every waking hour with for years with that only spoke about God. And yet they were apparently too dumb to understand what he said?!? But then when you want to pull the martyr card, suddenly they knew what they saw. Cant understand a sermon, can detect supernatural beings. Apparently that's not strange at all.

[SpaceCaseZ]

Can't believe Jimmy let the over talking between Paul and the caller, Dean, to go on so much.

[richardmcquade]

"Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek. The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses." Wikipedia.

Gotta love Greek mythology!

[seraphonica]

Honestly, this is a very lazy response I'm about to give, but it's not wrong. A lot of people die terrible deaths. It's reassuring to think that it might have been "for" something, but sometimes people die, terribly, for nothing. If you can't admit this? Maybe it's because you are having trouble squaring it with your belief in an omnipotent, benevolent deity.

[DeludedOne]

Because the guards in Matthews Gospel were willing to risk their careers and lives for a lie?

[amy_pieterse]

Heard the name Dean and it just reminded me of the Iron Giant movie. That character was awesome

[rainbowkrampus]

Paul's view would be a historicist one.
Historicism isn't a question of whether or not there was a flesh and blood Jesus of Nazareth (or wherever). Historicism is a question of whether or not the Jesus of Nazareth character was based on a real person or persons.
Jesus of Nazareth, the literary character in the Bible, is entirely mythologized. What we don't know is whether that mythologization revolved around a flesh and blood dude or was entirely a product of cultural signifiers and literary tropes.

Regarding why two authors would justify the Nazareth/Bethlehem issue, it's important to remember that we don't actually know what order these things were written in and that there were apologetics for Jesus being developed practically right out the gate.
Personally, I lean towards the Farrer hypothesis, that Luke came after Matthew and was essentially a revised version of Matthew meant to appeal to a different audience from the one the author/originator of Matthew was speaking to.
There's also the issue of competing christianities. While Paul was running around spreading his christianity, he was likely competing with an already existing one, most likely from Peter and or his crew. The Bethlehem/Nazareth apologetic could be a way of reconciling seemingly opposing narratives from competing christian groups.

Obviously not knock out evidence against historicism. The point is simply that there is good reason to skeptical of why the things in the Bible are there at all and that we should view every inclusion through a lens of conflicting and competing narratives being directed at different socioeconomic groups with different education standards.

[arnulfo]

A lot of those stories about the disciples dying for their beliefs are just made up legends. A lot those people either didn't exist or they weren't martyred.