Replies

Your link provides church tradition surrounding the death of the apostles, but no direct sources for the claims. The author ends by saying:

Although we can not at this time verify every detail historically...

Which is exactly what I said. The claims of martyrdom, as far as I know, were mostly made long after the fact by writers who had no direct knowledge of the events they purported to describe. The one exception is Yaakov Ha-Tzaddik (James the Just), whose death is mentioned by the contemporary historian Josephus.

I really don't wish to get into the game of prove this or prove that; it is pointless and ridiculous at so many levels.

The point is, if you are going to argue that the apostles MUST have been telling the truth, or they wouldn't have been willing to die martyrs' deaths, then the question of whether or not they were actually martyred becomes significant. If they weren't martyred, then your argument falls apart.

"The claims of martyrdom, as far as I know, were mostly made long after the fact by writers..."

Not at all; they were not recorded in a traditional sense until than. Their direct knowledge was based on oral, and probably written documentation, of the events.

It is the same manner that the recording of many of the events in the Old Testament. Do you have Adam's written accounts of what occurred in the Garden of Eden? Do you have Noah's actual written account of the flood; can you prove Noah actually existed in any written document form other than in the Torah and any other Jewish document?

Many of these events and historical events were recorded after the fact via oral accounts and documents that are not available for scrutiny. Just because the original documents are not available, does mean that the events did not occur.

"The point is, if you are going to argue that the apostles MUST have been telling the truth"

Review my posts; this is not at all what I am arguing.

I am arguing that the Apostles believed that they were preaching the truth. The events surrounding their lives, and their deaths, point to people who believed in the truthfulness of their statements rather than men who deceitfully concocted a false story to con others of money (which has been claimed on this thread).

Debating the authenticity of their beliefs is a whole other debate in itself. Arguing that these men created a mythical figure called Jesus, and than propagated that lie to enrich themselves holds little in the way of truth when put up against the contextual evidence that exists.

It is clear Jesus was a real person; it is also clear that the Apostles believed He was the Messiah (which I too believe).

Debating whether Jesus was the promised Messiah is not the argument I am presenting.