"Die for a Lie" won't Fly



The claim is composed of five elements. It requires:

1) A group of individuals;
2) Specifically named;
3) Who saw a physically resurrected Jesus;
4) Willingly dying for this belief; (key issue)
5) And not for any other reason.




Let’s review each element.









The rest of Acts focuses on Paul’s ministry.






















Why they died The crux of the matter.






Soldier: All right. Who is in charge here?
*Everyone points to Peter*


















Now for our examples:





Per chance the next one will fair better.






















A bias is showing, here.




kraryal said...

I want to try the argument on peopel that Joseph Smith was also a martyr and see what kind of reaction they have. (No real bearing on the general truth of Christianity though, so I will keep this short.)

As to the dependence on church tradition most people show here, the Protestant did not get as far away from the Catholics as they claimed, eh?

Most Christians seem perfectly happy to continue believing without doing much research into their faith and the origins of it.

I hope you ladies and gentleman enjoy writing for the sake of writing.

Kaffinator said...

Hi Kraryal,

> I want to try the argument on [people] that Joseph Smith was also a martyr and see what kind of reaction they have.

Joseph Smith was killed by a vigilante mob. His beliefs may have been in view, but more likely the mob was inflamed by the recent revelation of Joseph's polygamous lifestyle in "The Nauvoo Expositor", a newspaper that published exactly one issue before Joseph ordered its press destroyed. Joseph's "above the law" attitude was also a big factor—at the time of his death he was being held in Carthage on the charge of treason for having activated his own private militia. The mob was afraid he would once again rely on technical legal maneuvers to escape full prosecution and, regretfully, took matters into their own hands. But even as they did, Joseph once again tried unsuccessfully to signal his militia back in Nauvoo to bail him out, and having smuggled a gun into the jail, fired upon his attackers as they stormed the room.

There are almost no points of contact between this sort of "martyrdom" and the one we have recorded concerning Stephen in Acts 7, as well as in literally hundreds of other cases amongst early Christians.


Non-Catholic Christians agree that there is nothing wrong with tradition insofar as it is not elevated above scripture.


Nonsense. The origins of the Christian faith are recorded in the Bible which we read all the time.

Steve said...

It is obvious that one can speculate the differant possibilities that may or may not have taken place. It's also obvious you are a lawyer. I think it boils down to our position on this subject. It's clear that a skeptic will search for any scenerio that will enforce their position, while the faithful do not try and read between the lines, taking it more at face value. That's why it's called faith!

Dagoods, Did Jesus die for a lie? Or was He just confused as to who He was? He could of recanted and Pilot most likely would of let Him go free. How do you reconcile this? I am interested in your thoughts on this subject.

ephphatha said...


Very nicely articulated. Thanks.

Probably my biggest disagreement with you concerns Paul and the nature of his "vision." You seem to take it to be the same sort of thing as a Mary apparition. If I read Acts by itself, I would might get the same impression. But there are a couple of problem with that.

First, as you pointed out, nobody has ever been led to believe in Mary's resurrection because of an apparition. Why, then, did Paul believe in Jesus' resurrection because of an apparition? It seems to me Paul's experience was not the same as a Mary apparition.

Second, I think it's evident in Paul's writings that he believed in physical resurrection. Look at Romans 8:11, for example: "But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who indwells you." I wrote a series of blogs a while back on resurrection that included Paul, and they are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I don't think Paul would've used the word "resurrection" in reference to Jesus if he did not think Jesus was physically raised from the dead. In lumping his experience with that of the other apostles, no, I don't think he was saying their experience was non-physical just like his; rather, he's saying his experience was physical just like their's.

The other thing concerns your focus on whether the apostles had an opportunity to recant. I think I said something about this in our other discussion. It's not necessary for the "die for a lie" argument to work for the disciples to have had an opportunity to recant when face with immediate death. All that's necessary is that they had a reasonable expectation that their lives were in danger. Unless you just deny that there were early persecutions or that Christians (including leaders such as Stephen and James) were killed because of being Christians, the apostles were obviously willing to die for their beliefs. They knew they put their lives in danger, and continued to lead the Christian movement anyway.

I suspect the major difference between you and me is our general degree of skepticism. I think your skepticism regarding Peter, for example, is unwarranted. While I can grant the possibility that Peter was not martyred, that possibility is so remote that it's not even worth considering. I think the evidence concerning him is compelling.

DagoodS said...

Steve, thank you for the compliment. I am glad my profession shows in my writing. I agree that all we can do is speculate about the different possibilities. I would be just as incorrect to state that, in the absence of any evidence, it is impossible they were given the chance to recant.

Simply put, we do not know. Therefore this argument is completely unsupported, and should be acknowledged as such.

It is also true regarding the difference between a skeptic and the faithful. The funny thing is, many Christians are skeptical about the appearances of Mary I referred to, but are NOT skeptical about the appearance as recounted by Paul. Why don’t the Christians take those at “face value?” Or they are skeptical of Muslim claims of miracles. Curiously, they would hope I am just as skeptical.

Christians only become uncomfortable when I start to look at their own claims with the same skepticism they reserve for claims of other religions. At that point, I am informed I must turn of my skepticism and resort to faith.

Apparently God cannot convince a skeptic.

“Did Jesus die for a lie?” I would presume most Christians would respond with a hearty, “Yes,” wouldn’t they? If he was convicted for Jewish blaspheme—that would not have been true. If convicted for treason against Rome—that would not have been true. If convicted simply for political nicety—that would not have been true.

What, exactly, would you contend that Jesus could have recanted? If He said, “No, I am not a God” or said, “I am a God” it was too late, the Jewish leaders want him dead. Pilate may not want him dead, but kills him to calm an unruly crowd.

As krayral pointed out with Joseph Smith—a wiped up mob scene, in which a crowd is determined to kill someone means that person will die regardless of what they say.

Can you demonstrate what Jesus specifically could have said to Pilate that would have resulted in his release?

As to Jesus being confused as to who he was, I have no idea. I have yet to see a methodology which can practically be used to derive fact from fiction in the Christian accounts of Jesus’ life. We don’t know when he was born, what he did, what he said, nor even when he died, let alone start talking about his perception of himself. But that is for another time, and not really a part of this blog.


Glad you liked it.

As to Paul: Read what he said happened. (Galatians) Read what the author of Acts says happened. Paul repeatedly gets information directly from God. Paul believes that people can have an experience, either in body or out of body, in which they are caught up into the third Heaven, and hear things that are not utterable. (2 Cor. 12:1)

If you take Acts as history, Paul himself says he had visions.

Can you explain to me the difference in visions between a girl claiming she saw the Virgin Mary appear to her in the flesh, and speak, as compared to what Paul is claiming happened to him? What is the difference in the vision? I am not saying that people believe Mary was physically resurrected. I am saying it is the exact same type of vision.

When, according to Paul, did Jesus physically appear to him? When according to Acts, did Jesus physically appear to him? Best read the verses. Did Paul ever refer to Jesus appearing in a Vision to him?

And even granting you a physical appearance, we are left with the problem of how did Paul die and what were the circumstances. Now 1 Clement conflicts with Church tradition, and a new problem is introduced.

I would agree that Peter was a martyr. (By the way, “martyr” may not have meant death in the First Century. Still looking into that one…) But what are the circumstances of his death? Did he have the possibility of avoiding death by removing himself from Christianity?

And when did they put their lives in danger?

Attempting to put together a chronology of the initial stages of Christianity can be frustrating. What we need to see is:

1) When did the Christian movement start?
2) When did the persecutions start?
3) Where did the persecutions start?
4) What did the persecutions consist of?
5) Was there a belief the persecutions would stop?
6) Did the benefits outweigh the possibility of persecution?

I could go through and demonstrate that by the time deadly persecutions started (at best Nero 64 CE) it would be too late to pull back.

Yes, we do come from it at different angles. I do not take Acts as history. There is no record of any persecution of a selection of Jews by any historian of the time, no record of a rival religion, and the only persons that were fighting were among the Jewish leaders, and with the Romans. The dating in Acts is… problematic. (Which Herod killed James?)

Christianity was so well known and so persecuted that Pliny the Younger did not know anything about it. Does that make sense?

But even if you grant Acts as history, you are perpetually left with the same problem—any claim that the Disciples could have recanted and avoided persecution is speculation.

ephphatha said...


I agree that all we can do is speculate about the different possibilities....Simply put, we do not know. Therefore this argument is completely unsupported, and should be acknowledged as such.

It doesn't follow that if we don't know something for certain and have to speculate that our speculations are therefore "completely unsupported." Two possibility may both present themselves while one possibility is more likely than the other.


Christians, atheists, Muslims, and everybody are all skeptical when they hear stories that are inconsistent with their present worldview. This is just a banal observation. You don't believe there's a God, so of course I fully expect you to be skeptical of any claim that God raised Jesus from the dead. I'm no more inconsistent in being skeptical of Muslim claims than you are in being skeptical of Christian claims. We are both skeptical because the respective claims are inconsistent with our present worldview.

You rightly point out that Paul received revelations. But the issue is the appearance of Jesus. Did he anywhere claim that Jesus appeared to him during one of his revelations? No. So to answer that question we have to look at how Paul understood resurrection. And as I said before, we have to look at why Jesus' appearance caused Paul to believe he had been raised from the dead. You especially need to answer that since you insist on comparing Jesus' appearance to Paul with Mary apparitions which never result in people thinking Mary is raised from the dead.


I've already argued in our previous discussion that we don't need Paul's death to use the "die for a lie" argument. I showed that Paul was quite willing to risk his life over and over again. His willingness is enough to establish the point.


So you are actually denying that any Christians were killed for their faith before 64 CE?

I do not take Acts as history.

Then you can't rely on Acts to argue that Paul's experience was like a Mary apparition.


But it's not baseless speculation. Look at the official persecutions of the second and third centuries. Look at how Pliny the Younger handled Christians. In all the evidence we have, Christians were usually given an opportunity to recant.

But as I've said a couple of times already, it's not necessary that they had an opportunity to recant to make the "die for a lie" argument work. It's enough that they knowingly put themselves in danger. After seeing Jesus killed, Stephen killed, both James's killed, and the things Paul went through as well as the other apostles who had not yet died, surely the apostles knew they put their lives in danger.

John said...

Atheists' beliefs seem to be pointed in every direction, just like Christians' are. Some atheists believe that Jesus existed, and some do not. Some actually doubt that Paul existed. Others think that the Aposltes were perpetuating a lie, while others think that their beliefs were genuine but wrong. How can you expect people to leave the maze of beliefs that Christianity has become and take atheists seriously when atheists are trapped in their own maze?

Josh said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DagoodS said...

ephphatha, I answered some of your questions in a new blog, particularly about Paul and visions. If you take Acts as history, then the unequivocal answer is “Yes, Paul did claim to get his revelations through visions.”

Sure Paul was willing. After seeing a light and hearing a voice. NOT a physical Jesus. We are dangerously slipping into ground that you efficiently covered before. It is not a claim that it is TRUE, just the extent of the belief. Many, many people die for visions, or beliefs or claims that turn out to be false. “Die for a Lie” (as you have correctly stated) is NOT a claim, “they died, so it must be true.” It is a claim, “they died so they must have BELIEVED it.” The claim is that a physical resurrection would be so fantastic, that a belief is such is supportive of its occurrence.

A belief in a vision is not supportive of a physical resurrection.

I have no idea as to when Christians were persecuted. The first extra-Christian record we have is not until 64 CE. Ephphatha, that is why I asked all those questions about persecution in my last comment. There are not easy answers, and a troublesome lack of records.

Acts (imo) follows Josephus, and could not be completed in its final form until 94 CE. By this time, there is indication of persecution of Christians under Domitian. But the Gospel writers had a habit of importing current methods into the past. Like using a round rock for the tomb, when square rocks were used prior to 70 CE. Or placing the Pharisees as the dominant force when it was the Sadducees in charge.

My concern is that the author implicitly felt that since there was current persecution, there was always persecution.

We simply do not know.

Yes, please look at Pliny theYounger. Even following the Domitian persecution, Pliny had no clue whether an accused Christian should be allowed to recant or not! Trajan replies that there is no set standard by which Christians should be treated, but says if they demonstrate worship to other Gods, they should be let go.

Pliny notes that many of these had been Christians, but had since stopped believing it. (How is that for “Die for a Lie”?) Yes, Pliny provides them with a chance to recant. But Pliny is careful to note that after interrogating them, it was not a political association. Tacitus did NOT indicate a chance to recant.

Just because a Roman emperor does something, does not mean a previous emperor did as well. It is amusing that Pliny found them stubborn and inflexibly obstinate. Something we still see today. (NOT with you, ephphatha, might I add.)

How did Peter knowingly put himself in danger? After viewing Stephen, Jesus, James and James, it was obvious to avoid involvement with Jewish religious authorities. So what do they do?

Spread Christianity in areas in which the Jewish leaders had no authority—Samaria, the gentiles and Jews outside Judea.

Where, again, was Peter killed, according to tradition, ephphatha? It was only in Rome he had to fear for his life, not in Jerusalem.

DagoodS said...

John, you are right, of course, that in the area of Biblical study, atheist’s beliefs point in every direction, just like Christians. And just like Mormons, and Muslims, and Deists, and Agnostics, and about every flavor of theism imaginable.

Ever wonder what the reason for that is? It is due to a lack of records, lack of historical verification, and claims of everything from inerrant history to outright fabrication.

It comes from humans attempting to understand what other humans wrote. Kinda makes you wonder if there is a God involved at all, doesn’t it?

Steve said...

Dagoods, Your welcome! I have to say you may very well be the most honest lawyer in the profession! Although you are extreemly proficient at raising reasonable doubt, you do it with a profound search for the truth. I only pray that some day you will De-deconvert, and fight for Jesus once more. I would have liked to hear your arguments!

While it's true we cannot know for certain who actually were killed for their beliefs, or if any recanted or not, I believe Acts chapter 4 and chapter 6 show us that they were not afraid of the risks that preaching Jesus entailed. They actually praised God for it! It seems to me they looked for persecution. It obviously increased their faith.

As for Mary, I take it for face value when, where and why she is mentioned in the Bible. I am certainly not as well versed Biblically as you, but I don't see a grilled cheese verse in the sciptures. As for Paul seeing a physical Jesus, I don't know, I'm not sure I care! It's not important to me.


Dagoods, you are a champion of reason. This is apparent in your approach to this website. However, I believe reason is not always reasonable. Our ability to reason is only accurate if the information we use for our conclusions is the truth. And we both agree that our own nature causes us to look in differant directions for that truth. Have you ever argued a case that you thought was rock solid, only to end up loosing? Or maybe you, or a colleage have handled a case that you knew was weak, but ended up victorious? Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well, but that's how I view the subject of God. Sometimes what we think makes perfect sense ends up to be false, and what looks to be false is true. (I like to remember the crop circles at this point.) In the end this is why I rely on faith!

Apparently God cannot convince a skeptic.

Perhaps not! At least without force!


Too late? Possibly! But if it was, why ask him anymore questions? What's important to me is the Bible records him as remaining faithful throughout the whole process.


I'll try!

Pilot: "Jesus last chance here! What do you say for your actions?"

Jesus: "Look here Pilot. I don't want to die, and you don't seem to think I deserve to die. Your wife even says to not get involved. I'll just say that I have been drinking a lot of wine the past few years and lost control of reality. I'm sick in the head. First I will make a public apology and explain my situation, then I will just leave town and never come back."

Pilot: "You do understand that you still may need a whippin. I may not have a choice."

Jesus: "Cool!"

DagoodS said...

Steve, I highly recommend research on Pilate’s interaction with the Jews. All we have is from Josephus, but very informative. Do you know why he was called back in 36 CE? Or the previous incident where he gave in to a Jewish mob’s demands in order to keep the peace?

Unfortunately, the Gospel accounts (written, in my opinion, post 70 CE) are very pro-Roman. Thus painting a picture of a forgiving, kind and gentle Pilate as juxtaposed against the harsh, unrelenting, power hungry Jewish leaders.

According to the portrayal of Josephus, Pilate would not have even bothered with interrogating this individual at all, and there is no record, anywhere, of the practice of releasing a prisoner. No Jewish history. No Roman History.

Be that as it may, in taking on this argument, I must defer to the Christian belief that the Gospels and Acts are historical.

In answer to your question, yes I most certainly have taken cases that I should have won, and did not, and should have lost, yet won. That is because in America we have a jury system, and by integrating people, we end up with human error. That doesn’t mean we don’t recognize which side should have won.

As I have said elsewhere, if I was defending Christianity, as a whole, in a trial, I would recommend settlement, because I think it presents a losing case. Could a jury find for it? Sure. But 99 out of 100 would not. If one is relying on that 1 out of 100 chance, then so be it.

I read the events of Acts as to the persecution of the first believers. (Admittedly, I do not think Acts is historical, but in this argument, I must assume it is.) Have you noticed how people are convinced, “It won’t happen to me”? Look about you at all of the people that smoke.

Every person here knows that smoking dramatically increases the chances of lung disease, cancer, and shortens one’s life. One would be a fool to voluntarily imbibe in the habit. Why do they? “Because it won’t happen to me.” I see clients that do the stupidest things, get caught, and are charged with a crime. Something that will take them away from their family, their friends, and cause them problems for the rest of their life. Why would they ever do something so foolish? When it comes to getting caught, “It won’t happen to me.”

Although the early leaders of the church could see persecution. Could see what was happening, they choose to stay in Jerusalem. (Acts 8:1) Why? Now that the Pentecost had happened, there was no mandate to stay in Jerusalem. They could have spread the church from Damascus, Ephesus, Rome, or Samaria.

They stayed because they felt they were safe. Certainly no Christian will argue that the leaders voluntarily desired to be killed! There is no gain to the church in that.

If the leaders felt they would be killed, and there was no mandate that the church must spring from Jerusalem, why stay? In the context of this argument, (“Die for a Lie”) we are perpetually left with the questions—when did the die and what were the circumstances.

If we are lucky, the “Gospel of Lazarus” will be found within our lifetime, dated to 50 CE, and answer these questions. Until then, we must wrestle, speculate, and postulate, all with the background understanding of how little knowledge we actually have.

Steven Carr said...

Paul is clear that the earliest Christians were persecuted on the issue of circumcision (and perhaps the Law in general), not resurrection.

See Galatians 6:12 where Paul says Christians leaders would compromise their beliefs to avoid being persecuted for the corss (NB not resurrection) of Christ.

I don't know one single person who was killed for preaching a resurrection. (Even Stephen in Acts never says a resurrected Jesus walked the earth. Apparently he was killed for preaching the controversial view that somebody died and went to Heaven)

Later Christians , faced with death or recanting, would often find an alternative.

Why die for a lie, when you can be free for a fee? They would often bribe their accusors. It was the lesser of two evils.

Or sometimes Christians would refuse to offer sacrifice for the Emperor and get one of their pagan slaves to do it on behalf of their household.

Robin Lane Fox's 'Pagans and Christians' is good on the subject.

SocietyVs said...

I took a short over-view of the subject you wrote - it's vague and needed to be much longer I am thinking to cover all aspects - but it is well thought-out.

My main knock is the martyrdom thing - which I find somewhat ridiculous. If I read correctly (and I may not be) that Peter and James never died because of their faith but because of political reasons. I would love to agree but this idea seems a lot like BS.

They were called 'Christians' in either case and were killed because they professed this faith (had they not been Christians - they would have not been scapegoats for Nero or Herod). But one has to wonder why even kill a Christian? What's the motive? Oh we have been given some 'reasons' (political) but why choose those 'Christians' for death exactly? Needless to say, they were killed for their belief system (ie: the messiah) which differentiated them.

As for Applebey, Jones, and Koresh - all of which has sizeable followings and people that died with/for them. They don't even resemble martyrdom in the least (maybe Koresh but that's a stretch in honesty).

2 of those groups committed willing suicide and were not 'killed'/persecuted so in that sense they are not martyrs. Koresh's followers were killed by the USA gov't (this much we know is true) - but not on the basis of their belief system or because they were 'Branch Dividians' (which still exists to this day). They were attacked for the amount of weaponry they had within their house (ie: illegal guns).

Now one could say these people got a following and were deranged - I might agree (namely on Jones and Applebey). But these cases (and Joseph Smith) also vary greatly from what happened to 1st Century Christians and to compare the two is a betrayel in honesty.

Those 1st century Christians were killed for their belief system by the approval of the gov't and were singled out on the basis of their 'belief system'...which is not the case with Appleby (and I'll throw in Jones and Koresh). Did those 1st century people want to 'die'? No. They were literally 'sheep for the slaughter' in that sense. Whereas these other 3 durango's chose death willingly! None of these 20th cenury icons were actually persecuted by the govt's and held strongly to delusions of grandeur - which in many sense does not mimic a community of 1st century Christians who did not hold strong apocalyptic ideals of that sort. I think they are miles apart in many senses.

DagoodS said...

Jim Jordan wrote a response.

Thanks, Jim Jordan, for providing a reasoned response to my (ancient, now) blog entry. There are three things to keep in mind.

First, we must not confuse martyrdom and the argument of “Die for a Lie.” I see this on both sides of the fence (particularly when skeptics mention Muslims flying planes into buildings.) We all agree there are martyrs. We all agree that, regardless of the truth of what they have been told, people are willing to die as a result of the depth of their belief in what they have been informed.

There are Christian martyrs today. They are dying for believing what someone else has told them. We are not claiming that Christian martyrs of today saw a physically resurrected Jesus—they believe others who told them of a physically resurrected Jesus.

In the same way, we must be careful to not confuse the same martyrs of the first Century, C.E. I agree that there were Christian martyrs, who were killed simply for being Christians during that period. There were also pagans who were killed simply for being pagans during that time as well. Does that make pagan belief just as likely as Christian belief? Of course not!

The only way for the “Die for a Lie” argument to have any forcefulness is to claim that those who actually saw a physically resurrected Jesus were the ones that were dying. Claiming that those who heard of a physically resurrected Jesus were dying for that belief make it just as likely as any other belief that people are willing to die for.

We must be careful not to confuse those two very different groups. “Die for a Lie” needs to focus solely on eyewitnesses. To reduce it to all 1st Century Christian martyrs is to dilute the very teeth of the argument! It makes it as forceful as the claim that Muslims die for lie, so Islam must be correct!

Second, we must be specific as to how these eyewitnesses died. As I pointed out in my blog, this is not 1) just an area where history is silent, but the Bible states an event occurred (James the Lesser) or 2) that history tells of their death, but the Bible is silent (James the Just)—this is a mixed bag, in which we have a few examples, but the vast predominance would have BOTH history and the Bible silent.

Is that the best this argument can come up with? That “perhaps” they refused to die for a lie? That history is silent, so we can “fill-in-the-blanks” with whatever premise we need, in order to support our argument? Isn’t this presuming the conclusion in the argument?

Thirdly and really the key to the whole situation, is that we must focus on the reason the person died. If I was a spurned lover, so I threw a bomb into a Church, what does it matter whether the person in the Third Row, Second Seat had seen or had not seen a physically resurrected Jesus? What does it matter whether they knew it was a lie? They died. They were a Christian. They are a martyr. But they had no opportunity to choose whether to die for a lie or not.

Keeping that in mind, let’s go through some of your statements in your blog.

Jim Jordan: My response to that is that the book of Acts was written by Luke as an explanation of the apostle Paul.

O.K. So Luke was not writing about the martyrs that were refusing to die for a lie. How does that support this claim any? We are looking for examples of “die for a lie” in either the Bible or Christian writings or historical documents. If you are saying that Acts of the Apostles, because of its emphasis, does not provide us with any examples of people refusing to die for a lie, or eyewitnesses willing to die for the truth, I have no qualm with that.

Saying these things are not recorded doesn’t seem to support the argument they happened, though. (And I note that later you bring in James the Lesser, so apparently the author was recording something.)

More: John's whereabouts are well-documented as he wrote his gospel later as well as his letters and the Revelation.

Well, I think a great many (probably the majority) of Biblical scholars would disagree with John (presumably son of Zebedee) being the author of the Gospels, the letters and Revelation, that is irrelevant.

The question is “How did John die?” If you hold to the tradition of old age, I am uncertain as to how that possibly supports “Die for a lie.” He certainly wasn’t offered the opportunity.

More: Here I should restate what the argument "would not die for a lie" really means. The disciples who walked with Jesus and the other followers would have had seen with their own eyes the truth about Jesus.

Why are you “re-stating” the argument of “would not die for a lie?” The sole focus of my blog entry was on the eyewitnesses to the physically resurrected Jesus. I am not talking about witnesses to his birth, his childhood, his baptism, his calling of the disciples, his ministry, his journeys, his miracles, his capture, trial, death or burial. The whole key and force to the idea behind this argument is that Jesus was physically resurrected and people saw it.

The strength of their testimony to the physical resurrection is that they would go to extra-ordinary lengths based upon their belief in what they saw, even to the point of death. Again, people die all the time as martyrs for things they believe may happen, or things they have heard of. I listed examples in my blog entry.

To “re-state” that “die for a lie” is about belief in a traveling rabbi who wanted the disciples to press on, in the hopes of an eventual Kingdom, while interesting, was not the focus of my blog. (Further, by re-stating it, it appears to be a retreat from a physical resurrection claim as being too hard. That it is easier to prove that Jesus lived, so that would be the new focus of our attention.)

I don’t know why you wanted to “re-state” the argument, but if this is what you are now claiming, it was not what I was addressing in my blog entry.

More: The books of Acts and Romans give details about an expulsion by the emperor Claudius of Jewish Christians from Rome in the early 50s AD, less than 20 years after Jesus' resurrection.

Actually, it was an expulsion of Jews, not Christians. However, I do agree that the Romans would be unable to distinguish between the various sects of Judaism, such as Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, or Christians, so it is very likely that many Jews who were also Christians, living in Rome, were kicked out as well.

This only gives further support to my premise, and weakens the claim “wouldn’t die for a lie.” Here we have a persecution. In which a group of people, including but not exclusively Christians, are persecuted. And they are being persecuted for who they are—NOT for what they believe!

Soldier: O.K., Caesar has ordered you out.
Jewish Christian: But I am willing to recant my belief that I saw a physically resurrected Jesus!

Are you seriously saying that the Soldier’s next words would be, “Oh! I didn’t know that! In that case you are free to stay.” OR would the soldier say, “I don’t care about your particular Jewish in-fighting as to who believes what. Caesar has ordered you out—OUT YOU GO!”

This is a great example of how, even a person who claimed to see a physically resurrected Jesus, would not make a single bit of difference if they recanted that testimony or not. (And I would further note that no one would know if they had — they would still be out!)

More: Next we find extra-biblical data that Nero persecutedthe Christians as scapegoats about AD 64, 31 years after. The Christian church had already become a force that the most powerful ruler in the world had to deal with, and he dealt with them harshly. He even killed thousands of them. The point I'm, getting at here is that we have this hard fact, thousands of Christians are dying for their faith…

Tacitus says “huge numbers” which is a bit gray as to how many. Even given that this is “thousands”—again I am not disagreeing that there were Christian martyrs. Would you agree that there are Muslim martyrs? Does this make Islam correct? Of course not! It is witnesses, witnesses that we need—not martyrs, to give this argument teeth.

More: …[all most of them had to do was recant, declare Nero God and deny Christ] just 30 years after Jesus walked the earth.

And here is where the wheels fall off the bus. Do you have a source for this claim? Remember (as you have just stated yourself) Nero was blaming the Christians for the fire. Not for failing to worship Nero. The problem with this allegation, was that if all Nero had to do to kill them was to declare they were not worshipping him as a god--he would not have had to use the excuse of the fire to accuse them!

Ya can’t have it both ways—did Nero use them as a scapegoat for the fire? Or did Nero kill them for failing to worship him as a god?

If we read Pliny the Younger, who wrote the Emperor in early Second Century, HE is completely unfamiliar with Christianity, and has to question Trajan as to whether recanting would absolve them of any crime associated with Christianity:


This is why I would like a source for this claim. We have a writing within decades of this time, which indicates that it is completely unknown as to whether recanting would qualify, and your assertion that all they had to do was recant.


(And I should note that this has the same problem as the expulsion. Nero sentenced them to death for arson. Whether they believed the moon was made of cheese, or Jesus was physically resurrected or not wouldn’t make a difference.)

More: The idea that none of these folks were eyewitnesses is a stretch. Short of new forensic or documentary evidence, the debate ends there in a draw.

Whoa. This is a Christian claim that eyewitnesses wouldn’t die for a lie. It is their obligation to present witnesses. Are we now reduced to say it is possible there were some witnesses that lived in Rome on 64 C.E. And again, even if there were eyewitness—would what they said when accused as a scapegoat for causing the fire made a bit of difference?

Sure, it ends in a draw. If we don’t want to look at any of the evidence. 1 Clement is written, in Rome about 95 C.E. Mentions Paul (who is traditionally considered to have died in Nero’s persecution) and Peter as a martyrs. No other eyewitness. No James the lesser, no James the Just. 1 & 2 Peter were written post 64 CE—yet no mention of this Nero persecution.

How come all the Christian writings, written during this period fail to mention Nero’s persecution or accusations? Wouldn’t one write of it? Wouldn’t one mention a martyr during it? How is it that we have the Church in Rome prior to the expulsion, the church in Rome prior to Nero, and the Church in Rome after…steadily moving along as if there was not a blip on the radar?

If we ignore these problems, and do not try to address them, it makes it easier to have a “draw.”

Is this really the best we have for this argument for Christianity? “It is possible there was an eyewitness in Rome, and it is possible that they could have recanted to avoid the charge of Arson, and it is possible that they did not.”

Isn’t this an argument from silence; an argument that it “coulda; woulda; shoulda”?

Do you consider this argument a “draw”? That it is equally possible no eyewitnesses were ever offered the opportunity to recant?

I guess what is so disappointing, is this argument could have so much strength. I see it so often as the Christian proudly proclaims it as a force-to-be-reckoned with. Yet when I start to investigate and wrestle with it, it comes down to a meek, “Well…it is possible, right? It coulda happened, true?”

More: Dagood doesn't address the rapid growth of this "opt-in" church

Because the growth of the church, rapid or otherwise, has nothing to do with the argument of “die for a lie.” The only persons we can focus on are those who it is claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus’ physical resurrection. Say 516. Whether the church grew to 1000 or 10,000 or 100,000 within 1, 25 or 250 years makes no difference. We are still only concentrating on those 516 people. As pointed out time and time again, belief in what others claim, no matter the number, is not the thing that gives this argument any forcefulness. It is belief in what specific people saw.

(On a side note, the study of the early church is fascinating. The “explosion” theory of the growth of the church is only supported by Christian documents. Archeology, and contemporary historians do not demonstrate any such “explosion.” But that is not important to my blog entry.)

More: However, if we look at many verified accounts of early Christian martyrs, we see this very situation repeated over and over.

I am not LOOKING at “martyrs.” I am LOOKING at Witnesses! And what “verified accounts” other than those referenced in my blog entry?

More: The crime of the early church was that they called Jesus Lord, a word reserved for the emperor.

Source? (And Pliny the Younger is too late for your eyewitnesses.)

More: I see this as a serious obstacle to saying that the eyewitness Christians did not die for their faith. Certainly, they were grabbed and condemned to die, but on what grounds?

Exactly my point—on what grounds? What “eyewitnesses” and what grounds? Were they given a chance to recant and would that have made any difference?

More: We have this fact that Christians were killed for the charge of calling Jesus "Kurios" within 30 years of Jesus' death.

Source? Remember, you have just stated that Nero was using them as a scapegoat for the fire, which is completely contrary to this claim. If that is all Nero needed, he would not have had to blame them for the fire! Again, can’t have it both ways.

More: Again, the problem with the likely charge against John's brother James is blasphemy hurts his argument. In fact, Dagood here makes the assumption that Herod gets angry at James [as if they were unaware that decrying "Jesus is Lord" wouldn't anger Herod] and simply sicks his dogs on him. The ancient world wasn't that primitive. Even if the charges were trumped up, there would have been charges, and most likely the charge was blasphemy. I believe that it is logical that James died because he refused to deny Christ.

I am uncertain how this even remotely helps your argument. Hurts it terribly. You are saying that Herod falsified charges against James the lesser? How would recanting help James the lesser in any way from disputing charges that are false? Doesn’t this support my claim that “wouldn’t die for a lie” is unsupported in the few eyewitness death accounts we have?

You DO realize there is no recanting from “blasphemy,” right? If you are going to speculate a falsified charge, best stay away from blasphemy.

I think there are other problems, such as a political leader being concerned about a religious problem or needing a religious reason to order a death sentence (remember John the Baptist). And the fact that Herod immediately arrested Peter out of a concern for popularity, not religion.

And, I would note you assume your conclusion. The verses are silent as to why James died. I could equally argue that Herod killed him for betting on the wrong horse. Is that a “draw,” too?

Jim Jordan, this claim of Christianity that the physical resurrection of Jesus must be true, because eyewitnesses would not die for a lie needs to be shored up better than the timid “it is possible.” OR Christians would need to be more forthright that this is not the strong argument it is claimed to be, and is in the realm of speculation, rather than fact.

With what has been presented here, do you think you could convince a neutral person that an eyewitness to the physical resurrection was presented with an opportunity to recant, in the face of death, and chose to not?

All I see is supposition and presuming the very claim that is attempted to be bolstered. Sorry.