[PigRigger]

"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.

[malakhi]

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.

Jews accept the historicity of the events of the Hebrew scriptures only in part because of their being "eyewitness" accounts. The ultimate reason to believe the events to be historical is because the scriptures themselves are believed to be divinely inspired.

Similarly, Christians believe the events in the gospels to be true ultimately because they believe them to be divinely inspired. Divine inspiration is the "insurance policy", if you will, which guarantees their accuracy.

Regardless of what one thinks of the inspiration of the Jewish or Christian scriptures, the reports about the martyrdom of the apostles are not protected by divine inspiration. Consequently the are subject to a level of historical analysis which a believer would not apply to scripture itself.

It is clear Jesus was a real person

As it happens, I agree on this point.

it is also clear that the Apostles believed He was the Messiah

I also agree. Although I'd suggest that the apostles' understanding of Jesus was rather different than what was cemented as official church doctrine in the councils of the 4th century.