Replies

No, I'm not offering up a false dichotomy.

You are not understanding the context.

The disciples knew Jesus personally.

They were eyewitnesses to the things that He said and did.

They would know whether or not Jesus's claims as the Son of God were true or not -- because they would know if He actually healed or was raised from the Dead.

Therefore, if they went to their deaths voluntarily for the sake of His name,
it is proof that they believed that Jesus was who He said He was and they were willing to die for what they knew, firsthand, to be true.

Unless you are saying that somehow Jesus fooled even those men who were closest to Him?

Even Josephus, the writer who wrote of Jesus outside of the Bible, wondered if Jesus wasn't the miracle worker He said He was. And Josephus didn't know Jesus.

So, it is not a false dichotomy. It is evidence, in their own blood, of eyewitness testimony -- the purest legal form of testimony one can ask for.

Suicide bombers, unless they are sixteen hundred years old, cannot make the same claim because they have no idea if Mohammad actually was who He said He was from first hand experience. And anyway, that analogy is false, too, because Jesus would NEVER tell His disciples to murder the innocent. Jesus' disciples were tortured and killed because of their faith. They didn't seek ways to kill their "enemies" with their own deaths, they were probably praying for their "enemies" as they died.

No, I'm not offering up a false dichotomy.

Yes you are. You are assuming there are only two possibilities:

a. Jesus rose from the dead

b. The disciples knowingly went to their deaths for a lie

There are many other possibilities that you are a priori discounting when you offer up that dichotomy. The dichotomy only exists for those who already believe the Bible to be inerrant. For the rest of us who think that it may be partially or entirely false your dichotomy is no evidence at all.

They were eyewitnesses to the things that He said and did.

Like Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul?

If Mark was an 'eyewitness' why would he need to relate what Peter said? (cf. Eusebius and Papias)
And if Matthew was an eyewitness why would he have to borrow so much from non-eyewitness Mark?
Luke, to his credit, admits that he depended on the testimony of others. That and some liberal 'borrowing' of Flavius Josephus.
John, of 'Gospel of John' fame, seems to have a pretty high Hellenic-style Christology for an unlettered and unlearned Jewish fisherman. Not to mention that he didn't seem to care to much for Jews ...
Paul claims he was blined by a bright light and heard a voice. Stuff which now days usually gets you admitted to hospital, but I guess in the first century you could become a shaman and found a religion.

Therefore, if they went to their deaths voluntarily for the sake of His name, it is proof that they believed that Jesus was who He said He was and they were willing to die for what they knew, firsthand, to be true.

So what about the followers of Zeus, Aphrodite, or Apollo? Or the followers of Allah?
Jan Huss, the Waldensians, the Cathars all died for what they 'believed'.

Is that proof that they 'believed'? Certainly.
Is that proof that what they believed was true? Certainly not.